Another Example Of Why Police And Courts, Not Universities, Should Be Investigating, Prosecuting Rape Accusations
From MLive.com, John Counts writes of a University of Michigan student, living in a dorm just down from the one I lived in there, unfairly kicked out of school after an allegation of non-consensual sex...which took place while the student's roommate was in the bunk above him.
There were no cries for help. But the woman claims she was too intoxicated to consent to sex with Drew Sterrett:
Sterrett was never criminally charged and the woman didn't report any misconduct until August 2012. The lawsuit alleges the sex was consensual and the woman only reported it as misconduct after her mother found a diary chronicling the times she had sex....The lawsuit gives the following account of what happened March 16, 2012:
There was a gathering at Sterrett's dorm room. The woman didn't want to go back to sleep at her own dorm room because her roommate had company. She decided to stay in Sterrett's room. They had kissed prior to that night, the suit says.
Sterrett and his roommate, whose name does not appear in the suit, have bunk beds. His roommate climbed into the top bunk to go to sleep. Sterrett and the woman got into the bottom bunk.
Also uncontested by the woman is that they kissed and had sexual intercourse.
The woman did contest that the sexual encounter was "completely consensual at all times," according to the suit.
Sterrett's roommate was in the top bunk throughout the encounter. The woman is not contesting that she never attempted to ask him for help.
While the two were having sex, the roommate wrote Sterrett the following Facebook message at 3:19 a.m."
"Dude, you and [the woman] are being abnoxtiously(sic) loud and inconsiderate, so expect to pay back in full tomorrow. I only don't say anything now so I don't embarrass you all ... Yours Truly"
The woman spent the rest of the night in Sterrett's room, according to the suit.
...The woman went to the university's Office of Institutional Equity five months later, on Aug. 2, 2012, to make a verbal, sexual misconduct complaint.
Sterrett was back home in New York when he got a call from Heather Cowan, program manager and investigator with the Office Student Conflict Resolution, a few days after that. He was told a student had filed a complaint against him, but Cowan didn't specify what it was. He agreed to Skype with her about it later that day.
Gordon said Sterrett has still never met face-to-face with any of the university officials who were involved with his suspension.
Sterrett admitted to the sexual encounter and said it was consensual. What followed was an investigation into the matter that the suit says violated Sterrett's 14th Amendment right to due process.
Gordon said he was never given the names of the witnesses Cowan was interviewing and there was never a hearing.
Students have these for other offenses, Gordon said, but not for sexual misconduct. She called the investigation "a Kafkaesque nightmare."
Due process has been removed from being maie at America's universities.
via @WendyMcElroy1
So, if a woman has regrets about a sexual encounter, all she needs is to have a little drinkie-poo, and she can claim she was too drunk to consent.
"I'm not a slut! I'm a multiple rape victim!"
Andrea Dworkin might be dead, but her influence lives on.
Patrick at May 10, 2014 5:25 AM
Undoubtedly he also has something to drink, and hence (by this idiotic reasoning) unable to consent. So he should file a complaint against her.
a_random_guy at May 10, 2014 5:32 AM
What followed was an investigation into the matter that the suit says violated Sterrett's 14th Amendment right to due process.
If the suit goes to trial, I'd be very interested to see what the court thinks of this argument. As I've said elsewhere on this subject, I don't think the Constitutional right to due process applies outside a court of law. This case could prove me wrong.
Rex Little at May 10, 2014 6:59 AM
This case probably would not be prosecuted in a court. This comes to a he said/she said but having the roommate in the room basically would break her claim of it not being consensual. Especially with the claim only coming after her mother read her diary.
I see this more as a 5th due process issue rather than 14th. But either way the school was in the wrong.
Jim P. at May 10, 2014 7:15 AM
Here is what I think the relevant section of the 14th amendment, emphasis mine:
The University of Michigan is a state-supported institution, and as such they are a state actor. As for his property being seized, if the UofM would refund all his tuition and fees, they may be able to get out from under it...but I don't think they'll do that.
Also, the smudge mark on his record..."why were you expelled from the UofM?"
I R A Darth Aggie at May 10, 2014 8:44 AM
My wife points out that these cases poison the atmosphere when a woman is actually raped, as people stop believing complaining witnesses.
Peter M at May 10, 2014 9:12 AM
people stop believing complaining witnesses.
Feminists never stop.
dee nile at May 10, 2014 9:18 AM
What followed was an investigation into the matter that the suit says violated Sterrett's 14th Amendment right to due process.
If the suit goes to trial, I'd be very interested to see what the court thinks of this argument. As I've said elsewhere on this subject, I don't think the Constitutional right to due process applies outside a court of law. This case could prove me wrong. - Rex Little
Ahh, but they hold such extra judicial preceding at the direct command of the state in order to get money, therefore they are an extension of the state itself in such matters.
My guess is an ruling will be similar to such cases when the cops tried to hire private investigators to gather evidence illegally to circumvent denied search warrants.
That private actors working on the direct behest of the state are subject to the same limitations as the state.
lujlp at May 10, 2014 9:43 AM
I think false rape claims like this may be partly caused caused by our overly-puritanical culture - if sex were just seen as a normal human thing to do (which it is), then women wouldn't feel that they should be 'ashamed' for having sex, and then wouldn't feel a need to blame someone instead. It's this constant sick brainwashing that they've done something "bad".
Lobster at May 10, 2014 9:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/05/10/another_example_1.html#comment-4608415">comment from LobsterAlso, how can we expect another person to know that we are too drunk to make good choices (assuming we aren't passed out or obviously hammered, like to the point of word-slurring)? The notion that we are supposed to see into another person's thoughts is unreasonable and unfair.
Amy Alkon at May 10, 2014 9:56 AM
These kind of incidents are like the joke about the young woman who wanted to deposit a one hundred dollar bill into her bank account. When the teller informed her it was counterfeit and worthless she screamed, "I've been raped!"
Jay at May 10, 2014 1:50 PM
If the suit goes to trial, I'd be very interested to see what the court thinks of this argument. As I've said elsewhere on this subject, I don't think the Constitutional right to due process applies outside a court of law. This case could prove me wrong.
Posted by: Rex Little at May 10, 2014 6:59 AM
It does. Firing someone without going through the proper procedures, and reviews is often a violation of their due process rights.
But there are two kinds of due process, procedural, and substantive.
Substantive due process violations occur in a kangaroo court situation, among others.
Isab at May 10, 2014 2:00 PM
U Michigan agreed to supply a service to Sterrett. Then, UM did its own investigation of a claim having nothing to do with that service, broke the contract, kept the money, and defamed Sterrett.
This would be bad if UM were a private company, and it is possibly worse because UM is a state institution.
Possibly UM's fine print allows it to do this due to any crimes or misconduct committed by Sterritt. Misconduct would be vague, and no crime has been proven.
Andrew_M_Garland at May 10, 2014 4:03 PM
a_random_guy, yes, a thousand times yes!
Why did he not do that? If it's against the rules to have sex after a drink, the rules should be applied without regard to gender.
It of course gets more complicated, quickly. If they both had one drink, should they both be expelled? Or would the stupidity of that prevent this complaint from being filed at all?
What about two, each? Five each?
What if she had three and he had five - women process alcohol differently than men do, and in general get drunk quicker. Can he claim that she took advantage of him, since he drank more?
Still, I'd prefer to see arguments on these issues, over the situation here.
And I completely agree, that schools should not attempt to be courts. Expelling a student for cheating on a test, sure. But trying to decide guilt or innocence on a rape charge? That's not fair to either side. Rapists should be judged and punished by the court system, regardless of where it happened.
flbeachmom at May 11, 2014 9:21 AM
Some people feel that in the cases of 2 drunk people, the raped person is the one who is penetrated (regardless of gender). While that could resolve many cases, it still raises the question of what to do when both are penetrated...
NicoleK at May 12, 2014 12:38 AM
Some people feel that in the cases of 2 drunk people, the raped person is the one who is penetrated (regardless of gender).
Well, isnt that convenient. Given most people are hetero sexual, which gender do you suppose will most often be the one with the equipment to penetrate?
When are we going to movie past the notion that sex is something DONE TO a woman as it is soooooo disgusting she'd never lower herself to actively participate in or initiate?
lujlp at May 12, 2014 5:12 AM
Given the roommate's facebook post, don't you think that if it was rape, the scUM populating UM's bureaucracy could file real charges, considering they have an ear witness? And if charges can't be filed, then why isn't this dropped, along with the accused's full tuition refund and an apology from the bureaucrat and the University President. My feeling is that this poor guy is paying for the Michigan Kicker's more likely rape case (which still hasn't been prosecuted, even though it's 3 years old). The accuser in that story is more believable, although it's still a he said she said scenario.
spqr2008 at May 12, 2014 6:16 AM
Re: NicoleK and luljp, Why don't we say that the rape victim is the one who was "enveloped?"
DrPinWV at May 12, 2014 4:20 PM
Leave a comment