Image 01 Image 03

Kangaroo Courts At Princeton With 98 Percent Conviction Rate In Sexual Assault Cases

Kangaroo Courts At Princeton With 98 Percent Conviction Rate In Sexual Assault Cases

Princeton sued after botched assault case, male student claims false accusations.

A young man is suing Princeton College after the anvil of feminism led to a botched Title IX investigation against him — after two girls who allegedly teamed up to accuse the young man of “choking” them both and he was suspended last year.

College officials use Title IX investigations to get at the root of sexual assault and misconduct allegations: Did she really get assaulted? Is this man the culprit? But in John Doe’s case, a miscarriage of justice is evident.

And not only did Princeton suspend Doe, but there’s also a black-mark on his transcript now— alerting future colleges, grad schools, and employers that he was found responsible for misconduct while he was a young student.

But do the women’s claims hold up?

According to the suit, one young woman, referred to as “Jane Roe” in the suit, claimed that Doe choked her. At least, that was when her story was straight. The only unbiased witness at the scene said there was no choking at all, but rather, that Jane was drunk and became inconsolable.

Then, after speaking with an investigator, Jane claimed that Doe “grabbed [her] throat and lifted [her] off the ground” for “5-6 seconds.” Then, her story flip-flopped and she claimed he never squeezed her neck at all, but rather just “press[ed] from the front” and curiously…. that she “was mostly upset about how he handled the aftermath.”

This isn’t Jane’s first rodeo.

Recently, she settled a defamation suit that was brought against her by another male student. Coincidentally enough, that was related to her accusing a different male student of choking her.

It is quite unusual for women to be choked on a college campus. More unusual is it happening twice, by two different guys, to the same person. Cameras swarm college campuses, why not check the footage?

The next woman who accused John Doe of harassment, referred to as “Sarah” in the suit, had an oddly similar story to Jane… almost too similar. Sarah too claimed that she was “choked” by Mr. Doe.

Next, Sarah “changed her story in exactly the same way that Jane did” according to the suit.

“What started as a choking became John’s pressing against her neck from the front as they talked” according to the lawsuit, which is almost exactly how the other girl changed her story after being questioned.

In an affront to due process, the Princeton investigator, a Professor, decided to combine the cases from both girls, despite both cases happening weeks apart and despite the possible confabulation between the two girls.

Furthermore, at the start of the trial in 2023, the Professor argued that it would be a “moral failing” for the panel to vote for anything less than expulsion. She was quick to argue she was not sleeping during the interview, but didn’t respond back about how her words might have further prejudiced the school against the anonymous young man.

Those glaring issues and inconsistencies are the tip of the iceberg. The lawsuit points out:

-Jane told Princeton that she first found out she’d been choked when Sarah told her about it. Yet the day after the incident, she’d admitted in a text to John that Sarah had told her she’d seen no such thing.

-Jane told Princeton she’d cut off all contact with John in late July of 2022, but John submitted photos showing that he, Jane, and Sarah traveled together after that and even stayed with his family for several nights in late August.

-In her first interview, Sarah told Princeton that Jane didn’t have any bruises on her neck after the alleged choking—a fact confirmed by contemporaneous photographs. But in a later interview, Sarah changed her story and claimed that Jane did have bruising.

The evidence needed to put a black mark on John Doe’s college transcript must be “clear and convincing”, but was it?

Justin Dillon, a noted men’s due process lawyer, was sure to add that the investigator determining the future of these students cared so little that she literally fell asleep as the only witness was called.

The Professor claimed she wasn’t sleeping, asserting that  you can “see her eyes open and that she was looking down to take notes”.

This all happened, of course, before Mr. Doe knew that the school’s Committee on Discipline (COD) had convicted 98% of all students who have come before their kangaroo court according to recent data, as reflected in the court complaint

Among 700 cases investigated in the 2021-2022 academic year, Princeton found 98% of students guilty of various infractions. This is actually quite strange, because there are only about 8,000 students on campus at any given time.

700 cases of misconduct for 8,000 students seems quite high, and raises my concerns over whether administrative bloat may be trampling student’s expression. I reached out to Princeton University’s press office to ask about the lawsuit and the absurd number of misconduct cases.

“We believe this suit is without merit and will contest it vigorously. We are confident this situation was handled in accordance with University policy” says Jennifer Morril, Director of Media Relations at Princeton.

As for the 700 cases of misconduct in one academic year, Morril suggested that she was unclear of where that number came from. However, she did provide me with a copy of the Princeton 2021-2022 Disciplinary Report, which showed that 1,023 students went through the school’s discipline process — nearly 48% more students than initially thought.

And what might the schools be investigating? They don’t refer to things as “crimes”, only as categories. Over 700 people were found responsible for “health and safety” violations, and 29 students found guilty of theft.

Most infractions are so small that the student doesn’t even have a real consequence. Only 27 were suspended, and 13 students were put on probation. Which raises another question: why is the school doing so much investigating if they aren’t going to actually discipline most students?

And if these girls were really choked, as they claimed, why didn’t they go to the authorities or why didn’t Princeton encourage them to report him to the police? Choking is a life-threatening assault? Why play God?

John Doe’s case is ongoing. He was suspended for two years, but it is unclear if he will be able to, or want to, return to Princeton after his lawsuit is settled. The student is charging the school with a failure to conduct a fair hearing, investigation, and failure to provide a meaningful rationale for his suspension.

This lawsuit was brought to the public attention by Jonathan Taylor, who runs a database tracking the lawsuits students file against their colleges after they face a false accusation. The database is useful to me as a journalist, but — at the cost of a frappuccino — is also useful for parents, researchers and others in academia.

“Our databases are unique in that they are tailored to Title IX matters and especially accused student matters, meaning people can often get the information they seek more efficiently than if they used other databases—some of which are prohibitively expensive,” he tells Legal Insurrection.

————

Toni Airaksinen is a journalist  covering education in West Palm Beach County. Her works reflect a focus on due process for accused students, The First Amendment, and individual rights. Follow  me for future developments on Instagram (click here!) or Twitter (here!).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 1 
 
 3
rhhardin | July 22, 2024 at 7:12 am

Rape includes both fantasy and mind-changing now. There’s no denying the guilt of men for both.


 
 0 
 
 8
Crawford | July 22, 2024 at 7:57 am

Why are schools “investigating” crimes at all? We have a legal system for that. But, then, the accused has some rights in the legal system, but not in the school’s kangaroo court.


     
     5 
     
     2
    Milhouse in reply to Crawford. | July 22, 2024 at 9:08 am

    That’s an easy one. Colleges need their own disciplinary system because the standard of proof for discipline by the school, up to and including expulsion, is far lower than that for a criminal conviction.

    The legal system only cares whether a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, while respecting all of the defendant’s constitutional rights. If the evidence doesn’t meet that standard, or if the defendant’s rights were violated, then he can’t be convicted; and if he then harms someone else, oh well, that’s the price we pay for freedom. And that is how it should be.

    But if a college finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that a student is a threat to other people on campus, or even merely that on the balance of probabilities he’s likely to be a threat, then it has not only the legal right but also the responsibility to keep him off campus, and if it doesn’t do that and he harms someone, the college is liable and the victim will sue and win.

    So it needs its own system. But that system has to be fair. Not fair to the same standard as a criminal court, but it can’t be reckless and arbitrary, and the outcome can’t be predetermined, as too many colleges’ proceedings seem to be. If one in eight students is found responsible for an offense, in a single year, something is very wrong.


       
       1 
       
       4
      mailman in reply to Milhouse. | July 22, 2024 at 9:35 am

      This is a pretty stupid fucking take even for you 😂

      Universities have shown us clearly they are in no position to judge anyone on anything, especially since October 7.

      These people are incapable of doing anything for the actual benefit of their stupids and especially incapable of ensuring the safety of all on campus, as the threats and attacks on Jewish students have shown us.

      And they most definitely should not be investigating rape or sexual attacks at all! Those should be left to the professionals!


         
         3 
         
         1
        Milhouse in reply to mailman. | July 22, 2024 at 10:39 am

        Really?! Then how do you suggest they fulfill their duty to protect their students and staff from dangerous people? How can they rely on a criminal process that can only tell, and is only interested in telling, whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and is not capable of answering any other question?


           
           0 
           
           2
          Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | July 22, 2024 at 10:52 am

          That’s easy, you turn it over to law enforcement and let professionals deal with it.

          Guys, stop throwing rocks. Milhouse is right in the theoretical, and mostly wrong in the way theory is applied in practice. When Bob the Creep does something that shows he is a danger to the campus wimmenfolk, an alert *responsible* administration has a duty to chase Bob out immediately and keep him out while the legal wheels turn slowly in the background, a process that can take years. The problem is in target identification. Universities are quick to target young men whose only offense is they either peaved off a young woman in some unknown way or are being used by a feminist harpy with an axe to grind who has designated the poor guy as My Target To Eliminate Today. (See the Duke Lacrosse team for good examples)

          Theories are great, but the university teaches us that Reality is a B—ch. Without Wonder Woman’s lasso, we’re swimming against the current in search of truth.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 22, 2024 at 8:46 pm

          That’s easy, you turn it over to law enforcement and let professionals deal with it.

          Did you not read a word of what I wrote?!!!!

          Law enforcement are only interested in one thing, and only qualified to determine one thing: Is there proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, and can they obtain such proof without violating any of his constitutional rights.

          Law enforcement is not interested in determining whether the person is probably guilty, or likely guilty, or even that there’s clear and convincing evidence that he’s guilty, because they can’t do anything with such a determination.

          The constitution says he can’t be punished without convincing a jury of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, using only admissible evidence, and if his rights are violated then he can’t be punished even then. And the constitution is right to say so. So that is law enforcement’s sole interest and sole competence.

          A university can’t and shouldn’t operate by that standard. If the person is clearly guilty, or even only probably guilty, it has to take action against him. And it has to take into account even evidence that would be inadmissible in court, and it can’t let him off just because his rights were violated.

          So it has to have its own process. There is no other possible answer. That doesn’t mean the process can be arbitrary or capricious, or that it can recklessly convict everyone. It has a duty to the accused person as well. So it has to balance these things, but it has to do so itself; it can’t pass the buck to the criminal legal system.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 22, 2024 at 10:36 pm

          georgfelis, the question wasn’t about the disgraceful way universities are conducting their investigations. The question was why they are having them in the first place. “Why are schools “investigating” crimes at all? We have a legal system for that.”

          So I answered that question. They have to have their own investigative process. But they have to do it properly and fairly, and they don’t. They have a contractual obligation to the accused as well as to the accuser, and also a legal duty not to defame the accused by recklessly finding him responsible for offenses that there’s no good reason to believe he committed.


     
     0 
     
     0
    zaidy57 in reply to Crawford. | July 22, 2024 at 9:50 am

    Probably because they don’t want their own students to be showing up in droves every weekend at the local police station after the partying gets out of hand. It also is a PR strategy: keeping criminal conduct under the rug is important. If they deal with it privately, they also can control whether the accusations get any media attention (they don’t usually, but that’s a design feature, not a bug


 
 0 
 
 7
guyjones | July 22, 2024 at 8:00 am

It should have been well-established by now that colleges and universities are completely unsuited to “investigating” and “trying” allegations of sexual assault among students, and, that any such claims should be exclusively reported to and investigated by, law enforcement.


 
 0 
 
 2
WildernessLawyer | July 22, 2024 at 8:34 am

Only 98%?

Conviction rates in the high ninety percent range are a blinking red light, particularly in cases where a lot of story-shifting takes place, and mens rea is used to ‘read the defendant’s mind as to their intent.’ Now consider the J6 trials with a 99.98% conviction rate. That red light isn’t just flashing, it’s visible from orbit.


     
     0 
     
     0
    zaidy57 in reply to georgfelis. | July 22, 2024 at 9:46 am

    J6 trial?


     
     0 
     
     0
    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | July 22, 2024 at 10:44 pm

    A very high conviction rate in a criminal system is not a red light when charges are only brought against those whose guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If a prosecutor is doing his job, those against whom the evidence is not so strong, let alone those who are actually innocent, are never brought to trial, and therefore don’t affect the conviction rate. That’s not what’s happening at Princeton. They’re charging everyone, and convicting almost everyone.

    In regards to J6 in particular, they’re only charging people who are on video inside the Capitol where, at least technically, they had no legal right to be, so they’re guaranteed a conviction at least on that count, even if they can’t prove anything else.

    Of course this is unfair to those who had no idea they weren’t allowed to be in the Capitol, and thought that since the police had opened the doors and were waving them in they were legally entitled to enter. There was no mens rea. Trump should pardon them all at 12:01 on Jan-20.


 
 1 
 
 2
TargaGTS | July 22, 2024 at 8:51 am

Who do I blame for this? Republicans. This has been a problem as far back as 2015 or earlier. The GOP held Congress and the White House for two years. So, they enacted legislation to prohibit this practice at schools receiving federal money, right? Nope. McConnell and Ryan couldn’t be bothered. This wasn’t an issue the US Chamber of Commerce cared about so it wasn’t an issue they cared about. So, Trump was forced to tackle the issue with an Executive Order, which Biden then reversed the first few days in office.


     
     0 
     
     1
    venril in reply to TargaGTS. | July 22, 2024 at 9:29 am

    But no blame for Team Biden? Or the Left, which owns university governance? Fully agree with criticism of Paulie and cry’n John, the Turtle and that gal Lindsey.


     
     0 
     
     0
    zaidy57 in reply to TargaGTS. | July 22, 2024 at 9:45 am

    You blame Republicans for this? This has been a problem for at least two decades, it only recently (in the past 10 years) got *a little* more attention. Also Biden has not reversed it yet — the reversal goes into effect at the end of the month. Schools have had a very long time to drag their heels on this.


       
       0 
       
       0
      TargaGTS in reply to zaidy57. | July 22, 2024 at 12:29 pm

      Yes, I do. Biden wouldn’t have been able to change anything if there were statutory protections in place. When Democrats have the legislative power, they use it. When Republicans have that same power, they don’t particularly on cultural/social issues instead choosing to focus on things that help their corporate benefactors. There is a hesitancy, even hostility to criticizing the failure of GOP legislators. Nothing is going to improve until we hold GOP congressional leaders accountable for their incompetence.


     
     0 
     
     0
    mailman in reply to TargaGTS. | July 22, 2024 at 9:49 am

    This sits SOLELY with Democrats since it’s their people crating these problems.

    This isn’t on Republicans and in a sane world wouldn’t even need legislation to “fix” it.


 
 0 
 
 0
rhhardin | July 22, 2024 at 9:08 am

I, like LBJ, trace the falling out between the sexes to pantyhose.


 
 0 
 
 0
CommoChief | July 22, 2024 at 9:09 am

Campuses and many workplaces have become extraordinarily hostile to men through the introduction of extrajudicial proceedings leaving punishments against men without a sufficient or in many instances any foundation of facts to support the allegations. Instead the process, largely run by women, seeks to infantilize women as permanent victims regardless of evidence;
#believeallwomen. Most of these campus led extrajudicial proceedings have a similar statistical outcomes and workplaces with out of control HR dept Karens are getting there.

Many young men have evaluated the landscape, weighed the risk v reward ratio and are stepping back from casual interactions with women. So much so that there are many internet memes of young women complaining that the men in their workplace, while totally professional, refuse to engage with them socially turning down invitations to ‘grab a drink’ after work or hang out socially away from the office. The fact is these men are making the correct decision in this environment; save your time and attention for someone special and stop giving away the social validation or worse being ‘friend zoned’ by women who you don’t see as long term relationships. Nothing good can come from an office relationship these days b/c the risks are too high both personally and professionally.


     
     0 
     
     0
    venril in reply to CommoChief. | July 22, 2024 at 9:35 am

    SJWs have seized power in many places – this is part of the result.

    WRT office dalliances, ‘don’t dip your pen in company ink.’ Good advice – this has always been a bad idea.


       
       0 
       
       2
      CommoChief in reply to venril. | July 22, 2024 at 10:41 am

      Agreed. The problem that arises is the lack of opportunity for organic encounters that result in dating in the modern society. Remove Univ and workplaces from the other encounter to date to relationship to marriage pipeline ….and lots of current marriages wouldn’t exist. Gyms? Nah got too much drama and risk of some woman making you famous on TikTok for some innocent thing she calls creepy. Church? Lots of single moms who abandoned their functional marriage choosing to wreck their own home b/c ‘reasons’ and with no fault divorce as an option they don’t need one other than ‘unhappiness’. Bars? Nope that’s not for a relationship 9/10 times. Cold approach on the street? Nope, men have been told not to approach women. 40%+ of 1st marriages end in divorce with women filing 70%+ of the time and when they have a college degree rising towards 90%.

      Maybe we should consider investment in wine, candles, catfood and xanax. Supposedly JP Morgan has a study predicting by 2030 most women in the US over 30 will be single and childless.


 
 0 
 
 0
zaidy57 | July 22, 2024 at 9:43 am

Wow, I haven’t seen Toni Airaksinen’s byline in a while! good work covering what feminists have done to allowing them to destroy men’s lives. i hope to see more


 
 0 
 
 0
zaidy57 | July 22, 2024 at 9:43 am

You should cover Project 2025’s educational policies!

Perhaps I missed it, but don’t you wonder how many of those convicted at Princeton are white?


 
 0 
 
 0
Grey_Man | July 22, 2024 at 12:19 pm

98% is lower than the Feds.

I’ve defended students in these kinds of systems–the due process they afford the person charged is laughable. Student discipline should be for things like plaigerism and not sexual assault.

When Trump was President, the govt changed the rules so that they were more fair. Then when Biden took over, he went right back to the unfair system developed under Obama.

You’d be surprised how many of these cases develop because females are angry at the male charged, and not because there was a sexual assault.

    I wouldn’t be surprised. Met my wife in Accelerated Chemistry class. Her roommate (and associated friends) were some of the most incredibly petty, vengeful, spiteful, etc… I’d be with my soon-to-be wife studying while her roommate was on the phone with her friends, quite loud as if I didn’t exist. If any of them remain married to anybody today, it would be a miracle. My wife and I have been together 40 years now. They put very un-like people together as roomies back then. Thankfully.


 
 0 
 
 0
destroycommunism | July 22, 2024 at 6:54 pm

women proving again that wanting equality and justice is a one way street FOR them


 
 0 
 
 0
destroycommunism | July 22, 2024 at 6:56 pm

obama sent the schools the message of

due process can take a backseat

right along with his

no more blackpeople expelled for crimes message
lefty is sick

lets stop letting them control america

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.