A Few College Men Aren't Going Quietly Over Having Their Due Process Rights Taken From Them
At ProvidenceJournal, Katie Mulvaney reports:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The Brown University students met last October at a party where they flirted and kissed. Their intimacy escalated later in his dormitory room. But what he viewed as consensual groping and fondling, the woman claimed were unwanted sexual advances that spiraled into an assault.

She filed a sexual-misconduct complaint with the Ivy League school, and that led to his suspension for 2-1/2 years. Now, as a plaintiff named John Doe, he is suing the school in U.S. District Court. He accuses Brown of violating his due process rights and discriminating against him based on his gender, in violation of Title IX.

...Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. It has typically been used to safeguard female students' rights, as in the landmark 1992 sex-discrimination case at Brown in which several female athletes sued after funding for their gymnastics team was cut. As a result, the university was forced to restore financing to the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams and promote other women's sports to varsity.

In John Doe's case, Miltenberg is flipping that use of Title IX, arguing that the schools' investigative and disciplinary processes reveal "gender bias against males in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct."

...According to the lawsuit against Brown, John Doe was enrolled in the Class of 2017 and earned straight A's his freshman year. He hoped to pursue a career in neuroscience.
On Oct., 11, 2014, Doe, then a sophomore, met Jane Doe at a party at Barbour Hall, a dormitory. They began kissing as the party came to an end. Jane Doe texted a friend shortly after that she might be about to "hook up," the suit says.

They continued kissing and touching in his room at Marcy House, it says. Jane Doe told him that she didn't want to go any further, but they continued touching and lay down together after a pause. She guided his hand over her body before stating again that she didn't want to go any further. She left, kissing him and telling him she would see him at her birthday party the next night, the suit says.

A week later, the director of student life, Yolanda Castillo, informed John Doe that a no-contact order had been issued relating to Oct. 11; he was not to leave his room. The next day he learned Jane Doe had made a "serious allegation of sexual misconduct" against him. Then-Vice President of Student Affairs Margaret Klawunn ordered his immediate removal from campus. He faced conduct charges of sexual misconduct and illegal possession of alcohol, the suit says.

Now, we can't say for sure what happened here, but I have to say, so many of these cases sound nothing like the behavior by a person who is assaulted. Like, who kisses the person who assaults them and says they'll see them at a birthday party the next night?

What I want to see happen is for police and the judicial system to be dealing with these cases. This guy was not criminally charged -- meaning the police lacked evidence to charge him. Yet, under the government's extortionist Title IX letter, sent out to colleges, he had his future derailed and is going through what has to be a terrible time with the court case.

There's this from the piece:

He asserts that the woman's inconsistent accounts contained "stunning" departures from his recollection, including that he pushed and bruised her, didn't allow her to leave and continued touching her genitals after she told him to stop. She claimed to university officials that she was lying when she led him to believe that she was enjoying the intimacy, the suit says.

He alleges that the Student Conduct Board, comprised of university staff and a student, found him responsible for misconduct and suspended him for 2-1/2 years after an unfair hearing in which board members failed to challenge or question her account and refused to let him present certain evidence and testimony. Brown erroneously put the burden on him to prove his innocence, it says. "The hearing was a mere formality to conclude John Doe's predetermined guilt." The provost upheld the suspension on appeal.

... He alleges that Jane became furious at him when he didn't speak to her at a party on Oct. 12, 2014, the day after they were intimate, and that she repeatedly made defamatory statements to fellow students that they then repeated during the flawed investigation and adjudication process before the Student Conduct Board. As a result, his reputation at the university was damaged, precluding him from being admitted at a school of equal caliber, thus derailing his education and future career in medicine. Despite his exceptional academic record, he said he has been rejected at seven schools. He is seeking unspecified damages and legal fees.

I hate that any criminal would go free, but we need to err on the side of not punishing the innocent. If there isn't enough evidence for a person to be convicted of a crime (or even charged!) there should be no suspensions or punishments of any kind on campus.

via @chsommers