Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Due Process Tag

We haven't heard much about campus "rape culture" ever since the idea of abolishing the police became trendy in higher education, but Biden's pick to lead civil rights at the Department of Education is bringing it back. Under Trump, Betsy DeVos fought to uphold the concept of due process on campus. Now Catherine Lhamon wants to reverse that.

John Doe v. Oberlin College is a case we have covered for almost two years. While it doesn't get the media coverage of Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College, it's every bit as important, addressing alleged systemic abuses at Oberlin College in its treatment of male students. By way of background, we first covered the case on December 26, 2017, Lawsuit: Oberlin College sexual assault hearing process rigged, 100% conviction rate:

In 2017, Oberlin College was sued by an expelled male student who had been found responsible for sexual assault in a campus disciplinary hearing. The student, identified only as John Doe, alleged a seriously flawed hearing process as well as discrimination on the basis of sex because the process allegedly was biased against men. We first covered the case, and the motion to dismiss filed by Oberlin, in Lawsuit: Oberlin College sexual assault hearing process rigged, 100% conviction rate:

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.

For several years we have been covering the near elimination of due process rights for men accused of sexual misconduct on campuses. Universities, compelled by a directive from the Obama Department of Education under threat of loss of federal funding, have combined with toxic radical feminist "rape culture" warriors to create tribunals in which men are presumed guilty in what amount to Kangaroo courts for men on campus. These campus tribunals have turned our traditional notions of justice around. While we used to hold to a standard that better 10 gulity men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, now it's Better 10 Innocent Men Suffer, Than 1 Guilty Man Escape.

Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) schooled an official from the Department of Homeland Security on our Constitutionally protected right to due process. "Let me ask you another question about the terrorism list, what process if afforded a U.S. citizen before they go on that list?" Gowdy asked. After a brief pause, Ms. Burriesci of the Department of Homeland Security, obviously confused said, "I'm sorry, there's not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list. There is a process should someone feel they are unduly placed on the list."

We have been covering the absurdity of the "Yes Means Yes" movement, and the violation of fundamental due process rights under the banner of "rape culture," for quite some time: In our coverage, we frequently have posted this parody video from 2007. Now life is imitating parody, as reported in The Washington Examiner (via Instapundit), Advocacy group distributes sexual 'consent contracts' to college students:

The number of lawsuits by men wrongly accused of sexual assault on campus is increasing almost by the day. Most remain silent, preferring to go the "John Doe" route to avoid further reputational damage. Slowly, however, some men are going public, often where there names were already published anyway in high profile cases. One example is the suit against Columbia University by Jean-Paul Nungesser after Emma Sulkowicz drew attention to the allegations by carrying a mattress around campus. Here is one story playing out at San Diego State University, in which the charges were plastered all over campus and the news, only to be dropped once police investigated. Where does someone wrongly accused go to get his reputation back? It started with the arrest of Francisco Paiva Sousa, SDSU sex assault suspect out on bail:
A day after being arrested on suspicion of a sexual assault near campus, an SDSU student is out on bail. CBS News 8 cameras were there when 20-year-old Francisco Paiva Sousa was released from jail Wednesday. He was taken into custody Tuesday in connection with the alleged assault Sunday. Sousa said nothing as our cameras caught up with him after he made bail. The SDSU sophomore is accused of forcing a female student to perform oral sex while at a party off campus, according to campus police. Detectives say it happened at a duplex on College Avenue sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning....

Yet another Complaint has been filed by a male student disciplined after a campus adjudication of alleged sexual assault, this time against the California Regents for the conduct involving UC-Santa Barbara. As in all the other complaints, there are allegations that the sexual relations were consensual, a substantial delay in reporting, and alleged bureacratic bungling and mischief denying the male student. But this one has a unique twist -- the male was on leave of absence and the conduct was after the semester was over and the female accuser was transferring to another school.  This raises a unique question of the reach of university jurisdiction to enforce campus sexual conduct rules. What is not unique about this case is the salacious nature of the alleged facts. According to the Complaint, the accused male and accusing female were part of a group sex encounter at his parent's Lake Tahoe house, after school was over in June, with the male having graduated and the female transfering:
32. On June 14, 2014, John Doe and Jane Doe, along with a group of friends, traveled to Jane Doe’s parents’ home in Lake Tahoe for the weekend to celebrate the end of the school-year. Although some of the individuals on the trip happened to be members of the UCSB Mock Trial Team, the trip was in no way sponsored by or affiliated with UCSB. * * * 37. While John Doe was out of the house, L.B. approached Jane Doe in the master bedroom and asked whether she would be interested in having group sex with her and B.R. Subsequently, Jane Doe, L.B. and D.J. advised B.R. that they would be interested in the group sex only if John Doe was also involved. 38. When John Doe returned to the house, Witness B.R. advised him of B.R.’s earlier conversation with Jane Doe, D.J. and L.B. and inquired whether John Doe would be interested in taking part in the group sex.
Font Resize
Contrast Mode