First Person Look At The Kafkaesque "Committee On Sexual Misconduct" At Yale -- And Universities Across America
Via lasttango, from 2014, first-year Harvard law student Patrick Witt explains in the Boston Globe that, in the Title IX-driven kangaroo court at his undergrad alma mater, Yale, he was denied due process rights and it "nearly ruined" his life (and definitely caused substantial harm):
Harvard's new policies are substantially similar to those already in effect at Yale, my alma mater. While an undergraduate there, my ex-girlfriend filed an informal complaint against me with the then-newly-created University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct. The committee summoned me to appear and styled the meeting as a form of mediation. Its chairman, a professor with no prior experience handling dispute resolution, told me that I could have a faculty adviser present but no lawyer, and instructed me to avoid my accuser, who, by that point, I had neither seen nor spoken to in weeks. The committee imposed an "expectation of confidentiality" on me so as to prevent any form of "retaliation" against my accuser.I would say more about what the accusation itself entailed if indeed I had such information. Under the informal complaint process, specific accusations are not disclosed to the accused, no fact-finding takes place, and no record is taken of the alleged misconduct. For the committee to issue an informal complaint, an accuser need only bring an accusation that, if substantiated, would constitute a violation of university policy concerning sexual misconduct. The informal "process" begins and ends at the point of accusation; the truth of the claim is immaterial.
When I demanded that fact-finding be done so that I could clear my name, I was told, "There's nothing to clear your name of." When I then requested that a formal complaint be lodged against me -- a process that does involve investigation into the facts -- I was told that such a course of action was impossible for me to initiate. At any time, however, my accuser retained the right to raise the complaint to a formal level. No matter, the Committee reassured me, the informal complaint did not constitute a disciplinary proceeding and nothing would be attached to my official record at Yale.
Coincidentally, the same day that my accuser decided to lodge the complaint against me, the news that I had been selected as a finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship had been publicly announced. The news gained national attention, with stories in every major media outlet in print and online, because of my position as Yale's starting quarterback and the fact that my interview date was set for the same day as my last Harvard-Yale football game.
Days after the initial meeting with the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct, I received a phone call from the Rhodes Trust informing me that they had received an anonymous tip that I had been accused by a fellow student of sexual misconduct. Next came a call from my summer employer, who, having received a similar anonymous tip, rescinded my offer of full-time employment upon graduation.
Months later, long after I had already withdrawn my Rhodes candidacy, the New York Times somehow also learned of the "confidential" complaint made against me, and that the Rhodes Trust had been aware of it. The paper then published a lengthy article revising the narrative of my pursuit of the scholarship and suggesting that I had intentionally misled media into believing a feel-good sports story that never was. The Times' public editor later condemned the piece for using anonymous sources, but the damage was already done; I was publicly humiliated. The memory of being told by the Committee that I had "nothing to clear my name of" was searing.
Yes, an "informal complaint" like this can be filed and a student has little to do in the wake but to try not to lose everything. A little hard to fight charges when they won't tell you what they are. The bedrock rights in our society are now denied to males on campus, and they are seriously imperiled for it.
Here's Minding The Campus with KC Johnson and Harvey Silverglate on the process:
In blunt language, this means that the accused student, Witt in this case, does not have the right within the Yale procedure to cross-examine his accuser. He does not even have the right to present evidence of his innocence. The accusation is accepted at face value, and the purpose of the process is to resolve it in a way that the accusing student feels comfortable. It is on the basis of this sort of complaint, filed under this procedure, that the Rhodes Fellowship decided that it needed to suspend Witt's candidacy. That's nothing short of extraordinary.The second story that the Times missed, that the Witt case exposed, is that by Yale's own figures, Yale is actually a hotbed of violent crime. Who knew? In the calendar year 2011, there were 13 allegations of sexual assault at Yale, according to Yale's figures. All 13 were filed under this informal complaint process, which means that the accuser never went to police, never received any sort of medical exam, and the accused student never had a right to cross-examine or to present evidence of innocence. To give a sense of how out of whack these figures are, if you accept Yale's standards, on a per capita basis there was more likely to be a sexual assault on the Yale campus, by a factor of between ten and twelve, than in the city of New Haven. And New Haven isn't just any city. According to the FBI, it's the fourth most dangerous city in the country for populations over 100,000. So the Times had one of two stories. Either one of our nation's leading institutions is so dangerous that it's infinitely more crime-ridden than one of the most dangerous cities in the country, or in fact, one of our leading universities is dumbing down sexual assault. It is, in fact, the latter. In a footnote in a lengthy report on this new process, issued by the Yale Deputy Provost, Yale conceded that the university uses, and this is a direct quote, "a more expansive definition of sexual assault than is commonly understood." Indeed, claiming that a "worry" constitutes sexual assault is expansive indeed. And so what a university has done is to take a commonly understood phrase, sexual assault under the law-a phrase that's also basically commonly understood in the general public-and defined it in a way that no one would understand or recognize. That is the real story of the Patrick Witt case.
A final point on Witt. Within this Yale informal complaint process, there is one possible procedural protection that is granted to the accused student, and that is that the process is supposed to be wholly confidential. So the accused student cannot present evidence of his innocence. He can't cross-examine the accuser. He is presumed guilty. But at least he has the benefit of knowing that it won't become public, or at least it won't become public immediately. In Yale's case, and in the case of Witt, even that one incredibly minor procedural protection was violated. And not only was it violated, it was violated with a malevolent intent. Whoever leaked this information to the Rhodes Trust, and it's a very discrete number of people who could have leaked this (either someone associated with the accuser, or I would say more likely, someone within the Yale administration), the goal was to sink Witt's Rhodes candidacy. And that leakage in turn led to the coverage in the Times and the permanent smearing of Witt's reputation. This morning, before I came over, I did a Google search, Patrick Witt, sexual assault, it yielded 33,600 hits. This is what Witt is now remembered for. There is absolutely no evidence that Yale is investigating this breach of its procedures, I emailed the Yale University spokesperson to ask if an investigation was occurring. He declined to respond. And there is no indication that at any point in the future Yale is going to investigate this breach of procedures. Indeed, it seems as if the university is not terribly concerned with assault if the issue is assault of privacy against one of its students. And that is the story of Patrick Witt.
Again, if you're sending sons to college, I suggest putting some money aside so they and some buddies can timeshare an escort. Sadly, the best advice you can give them to preserve their rights and future is to avoid all college women throughout their time in college.
I would love to see all accused students refuse to participate in these procedures, and instead return a letter that says something to the effect of, "I will not participate if I cannot be represented by council, have due process, etc., and if you expel me, I'll sue."
Farmer Joe at April 23, 2015 5:45 AM
When someone makes an affordable and realistic sexbot, within a year or two, it will be part of the package every smart parent sends their boys to school with.
Because the expense will be out-and-out insurance against a he-said she-said non-prosecution. . .
Of course, this will be followed by cries of "ignorance-rape" by the perpetually outraged. . .
Keith Glass at April 23, 2015 5:46 AM
Farmer Joe: I agree that this is the right approach for accused to pursue. The problem is that the student can be immediately expelled and the information will still be leaked. What we need is the light of day: more stories like this being aired publicly will force universities to capitulate.
Astra at April 23, 2015 6:09 AM
"... there was more likely to be a sexual assault on the Yale campus, by a factor of between ten and twelve, than in the city of New Haven."
Worth putting up on a billboard/ad in appropriate mags to make sure innocent young ladies know to avoid Yale.
Bob in Texas at April 23, 2015 6:11 AM
The purpose of defense counsel is to keep honest the government or institution which is conducting the hearing. That is a chief reason defense counsel are being excluded from these modern versions of the Salem Witch Trials. Now, however, instead of claiming demonic possession, the women are claiming Penonic Possession. College administrators certainly don't want their fragile females having to answer the question of "So tell us exactly how The Prick made you do it?" Too often the answer will be "He asked and I said 'Yes', but later my LGBT awareness counselor told me I really meant 'No'" or some other outlandish reason. Victimhood cannot tolerate evidence of either choice or personal responsibility.
Wfjag at April 23, 2015 7:06 AM
This is just the legacy of Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin: all heterosexual encounters are by defnintion rape.
But there is a bit of good news via Ashe Schow: North Dakota becomes the third state where you have a right to bring your lawyer to such hearings. The other two states? Arkansas and North Carolina.
Choose accordingly.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 23, 2015 7:28 AM
Having sampled the product of most American universities, as one would expect, institutions that are on the course to become all female are institutions in decline that are increasingly ineffective.
I would wonder why parents still play this game, and conservatives and libertarians still fetishize the college degree, but, then again, parents still metaphorically stick their children in the burning brass oven of the public school system.
I figured once a quote like, "My goal is to alienate a college boy's beliefs as far as possible from those of his father," from Dr. Woodrow Wilson was known far and wide enough, people would look askance at colleges or tear them down and build new ones and police them more to actual live up to the idea of being bastions of freedom for every competing idea.
El Verde Loco at April 23, 2015 7:54 AM
"I would wonder why parents still play this game, and conservatives and libertarians still fetishize the college degree..."
Yeah, that's a good question. America's univerisities used to do great things and turn out great people. But, with the exception of a small number of STEM-oriented institutions, that's now a half century in the rearview mirror. I've come to realize that the Baby Boom generation still sees the college degree, any degree, as the ticket to a good life, and the holder of such a degree as an inherently better person. It's almost touching in its carrying the torch for a time when America was a better place than it is now. (Of course, those same Boomers had a lot to do with creating the situation that exists now.) In their day, universities produced people who led mighty corporations, produced iconic works of literature, created scientific and engineering inventions that improved everyone's lives, and government wisely with due regard to the public trust.
They passed this belief on to their children, and a lot of said children passed it on to their children, completely separate from what was actually happening. The Millennials got lectured on this, believed it, and now they're trying to pay off $100K in student loans on Taco Bell wages. (Again, some of this was their own fault: they didn't seriously think that a four-year-long party and a minimal-coursework degree was going to impress anyone, did they?)
There's education out there to be had, but you won't find it in the increasingly closed minds that inhabit America's ivory towers. The education is out there, in the field, the office, the library, and the Internet. For the most part, it won't come to you; you have to go find it. In some ways, it is a return to an older education system (apprenticeship), and in some ways, it is very new (Internet colleges and distance learning). The traditional universities do not have a role in either of these things. The thing the traditional universities have going for them is credentialism, but people that actually want to make money and accomplish things are realizing that those credentials don't actually communicate any information about the credential holder.
Cousin Dave at April 23, 2015 8:38 AM
"and *governed* wisely with due regard..." Sheesh. So much for proofreading. Gotta stop writing these Faulkner novels here.
Cousin Dave at April 23, 2015 11:12 AM
What happened to the accuser? Oh, wait, nothing.
drcos at April 23, 2015 11:54 AM
"I would wonder why parents still play this game, and conservatives and libertarians still fetishize the college degree..."
I don't know the trend on this. Is it growing/shrinking/holding steady?
My parents told me they would help pay for any degree they liked. Namely ones in the hard sciences and engineering or that otherwise provided a cost effective career path. Pissed my sister off to no end when they told her they wouldn't pay for a history degree. She could do it on her own but they didn't care to participate. I plan on taking the same attitude with my own kids. But I come from a long line of cheapskates and skinflints.
Ben at April 24, 2015 10:13 AM
My husband and I agreed we'd pay for college or vocational school for our kids as long as it is a legit career with prospects (plumber, nursing, engineering, etc.). If they want to study something stupid without a solid career prospect they are on their own. My husband originally planned to study chemistry with plans for a pharmaceuticals career. His mother told him he couldn't go to school clear on the other side of the country. His dad said he wouldn't pay for a "useless degree" in chemistry because you "can't do anything with it." He instead went to a local college, his dad paid for it, and he got degrees in psychology and communications, which his dad pickedfor him (basically do what he says or get no money). He now inherited and runs the family business, but I often wonder if he's happy about it because it's nothing he had ever wanted to do. It was just the easier path.
BunnyGirl at April 24, 2015 4:19 PM
Leave a comment