GWU Sued For Refusing Appeal In Sexual Assault Case Despite Allegations of False Testimony

150px-gwulogoGeorge Washington University is embroiled in a federal challenge against its handling of a case by one of our students accused of sexual assault.  The case raises troubling questions of the school’s actions following the disclosure of alleged false statements by an accuser.  Many years ago, I wrote a letter to the GW faculty objecting to changes in our rules governing the investigation and adjudication of sexual harassment and assault cases.  Like many universities during the Obama Administration, GW was reducing protections for students accused of such misconduct under pressure from the Department of Education (here and here),  Now, a “John Doe” has raised some of those very concerns in the alleged refusal of the school to allow an appeal in his case following the discovery of potentially exculpatory evidence.Doe is alleging that GWU has refused to grant an appeal after he discovered (with no help from the university) that his accuser allegedly introduced false evidence on the key question of her level of intoxication.  The accuser was Gillian Chandler who decided to drop her anonymity and self-identify in an article with The GW Hatchet in March.  The male student has continued his use of an anonymous identity but has accused Chandler of outing him publicly in violation of privacy rules.

In the filing last week, the student describes an all-too-familiar dispute for colleges and universities over whether there was true consent to sexual relations due to intoxication. The two students reportedly met at a party and used Uber to return to Doe’s room, Chandler testified that she was in a “blackout state” during this time and had no memory of the ride.  She says that woke up face down on Doe’s dorm bed during sex.

In January the university found Doe responsible for sexually assaulting Roe on September 13, 2015, and suspended him for one year.

Doe and Roe met at a party the previous night and used Uber to return to Doe’s room, though Roe testified that she was in a “blackout state” during this time and had no memory of the ride, according to the filing. She said she woke up face down on Doe’s dorm bed during sex.  She said that she tried to push him away and said “no” but was forced to have sex.  She says that she left and later told her roommate and boyfriend what had happened.  The evidence of her intoxication was based largely on an  alleged phone call between her and a friend, “E.E..”   E.E. said that she called her when the two were going to Doe’s room and that she slurred her words and was clearly incapacitated.

The phone records were only obtained by filing an action in federal court.  The court allowed Mr. Doe to serve a third-party subpoena to obtain E.E.’s cellphone records and the court later acknowledged that “those records do not show that E.E. made or received a telephone call during the relevant time period. GW has filed a motion in limine to preclude introduction of E.E.’s cellphone records, arguing that because they were not before the hearing panel they are irrelevant to its processes or findings.”

Later however Doe reported that he was able to prove that the call was never made after reviewing a record of calls to E.E.  If true, it was clearly be material and important.  Doe also raised an expert’s report questioning the level of alcohol claiming by the accuser in her system (given her ability to walk downstairs and memory of certain facts).  He also introduced a witness claiming to have had a lucid conversation with the accuser shortly before they left.

That does not mean that the conviction would be overturned. However, the evidence does raise obvious and disturbing questions for appeal. Nevertheless, Robert Snyder, GWU’s executive director of planning and outreach, Doe had “not met the requirements for an appeal.” If so, there are obvious problems with “the requirements.”

The university is maintaining a conflicting position of maintaining that Doe “[had] not met the requirements for an appeal” under the Code, id. ¶ 130-31, i.e., he had not presented relevant “‘new information . . . that was not previously presented at the hearing.’” Mot. PI at 14. Yet, it is trying to block the new evidence of the lack of a call to E.E., which would challenge the veracity of prior testimony as well as the assumed physical state of the accuser.

The Student Code contains an appellate rule at Section 33 that reads:

33. Parties have a right to appeal the outcome of a disciplinary hearing or conference but not the sanction. Appeals must be based on new information that is relevant to the case, that was not previously presented at the hearing or conference, and that significantly alters the finding of fact. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities within five business days after receipt of the outcome letter. Failure to appeal within the allotted time will render the original decision final and conclusive.

That language requires new information that (1) is relevant, (2) not previously introduced, and (3) significantly alters the finding of fact.  The one problem with the language is the absence of an appeal based solely on the misapplication of the “law” governing the adjudication. There are appeals based on the failure to follow procedures.  It only seems to allow an appeal for new evidence as opposed to error.  Even if one accepts the limited basis for appeal, the question is the “as applied”  element for the rule.  If the evidence on the call was part of the appeal (as opposed to evidence acquired later in federal court), it is hard to see why it would not meet these conditions.

Doe also alleges, as recounted by the court, that the university rules and bias have produced a conviction rate of 100%:

Mr. Doe also alleges that the University has publicly touted “its 100% conviction rate of respondents put through its formal sexual misconduct process, all of whom are believed to be male.” Id. ¶ 8; Mot. PI at 5. He cites a “Message from University Administrators,” that was available contemporaneously on a GW website, which stated: “During the last two academic years (2015-16 and 2016-17 to date), 16 reported cases resulted in formal complaints, 10 went before a hearing board and are concluded. Four of these [10] cases resulted in an expulsion, five resulted in a suspension, and one resulted in a deferred suspension.” Mot. PI, Ex. 7, GW Today, Message from University Administrators (Apr. 21, 2017) [Dkt. 6-8] at 3; see also https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/message-university-administrators (last visited Apr. 23, 2018). From this message, Mr. Doe deduces a conviction rate of 10-for-10 of those who presented a defense to a hearing panel.

Doe is seeking a partial summary judgment before Judge Rosemary Collyer.  He lost the first round when Collyer refused to block Doe’s suspension.  It is often difficult to secure a preliminary injunction of this kind, which requires that Doe establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”  Collyer decided that he could not meet that standard.  Collyer had ample case precedent for rejecting a gap year injury as the basis for preliminary injunction. She noted

“Mr. Doe argues forcefully that a “gap” between the date of his degree and the date he begins graduate school or meaningful post-graduate employment will forever injure his record and require explanation of Ms. Roe’s accusation to any future school or employer even if he succeeds at this lawsuit. However, the University will post-date Mr. Doe’s diploma if he wins and a gap of one year between college and graduate school is neither unusual nor necessarily impactful.”

While recognizing the precedent cited by the court, I have always been troubed by the dismissal of a year as insufficient to meet the prong for irreparable harm.  That is still a considerable loss to be frozen in amber, waiting for a ruling. It can also take more than a year given the dockets of most of our federal courts.

GWU however lost more than it gained in the opinion.  The case will still go forward and Collyer rejected a motion in Limine to block the evidence of the missing call.

It is true that the cellphone records do not pertain to the Court’s review of the fairness and reasonableness of the hearing panel’s decision at the time. However, the Court finds the cellphone records to be relevant to this case because they may be found to support Mr. Doe’s contention that he is actually innocent of the behavior for which he was suspended.

The university will now have to continue its costly defense and deal precisely with the evidence that it refused to consider in its own appellate process.  Most students do not have the resources or inclination to take such matters to court.  When they do, judges are often shocked by what they see in academic proceedings in the denial of confrontation, access to witnesses, access to counsel, and other flaws.  GW is not as bad as some schools in such due process violations but it is hardly a model of good practices.  The denial of any appeal in this case is hard to reconcile with basic concepts of fairness or due process.

I have been supportive of these lawsuits which have repeatedly found that universities are abusing their students in denying the basic due process and evidentiary protections.  University administrators and faculty have ignored objections for years from law faculty and others about these procedures.  As I have previously argued, the Obama administration sought to achieve the appearance of success through a pretense of process. It associated fundamental rights with unsafe environments. However, stripping rights will not bring real safety any more than rigging outcomes will bring real justice for our students.

 

90 thoughts on “GWU Sued For Refusing Appeal In Sexual Assault Case Despite Allegations of False Testimony”

  1. I still state that this belongs in the judicial system. Universities are not competent to administer the law.

    1. David Benson owes me two citations, one from the OED. I would posit that universities are incapable of administering themselves, much less the law.

      1. Given the situation that Washington State University has floundered its way into, there is some justification for your last sentence.

        But none whatsoever for your first. I don’t take your orders.

        1. David Benson owes me two citations, one from the OED.. Your honor is on the line. I am not ordering you to do anything.

            1. David Benson still owes me two citations, one from the OED. My honor is shining sterling, thank you for asking. You, however, are looking tarnished. More so by the day.

              1. Well, for those of you who live in the camp of the dishonorable …

  2. Colleges and parents need to educate kids about the legal rights they give up by getting stupor drunk. They cannot serve as a reliable witness. They put themselves and others at risk. They act like fools.

    I want every parent to advise Johnny or Jane to have someone videotape them during extreme inebriation, and then be forced to watch it several times, and to explain their behavior.

    If I were a college president, I would enact a safe drinking standard (0.06 %BAC), and tell students, the college is not going to keep you around if you violate the safe-drinking standard. “We’d rather have your space given to a safe-drinker”. And, “The College is not going to get involved in any disputes on behalf of someone where violation of the standard took place”.

  3. I have to wonder what sanctions a university would actually suffer if they provided an accused with the same due process rights as afforded by the criminal courts.

    Somehow, I don’t believe a university actually would if they tested the waters by providing due process.

    1. The dirty little secret is that they don’t want to proceed according to regular and customary fact-finding procedures. See Natacha’s posts. She’s got her stories and she’s sticking to ’em, no matter how internatlly contradictory they are. Same with student affairs shnooks and the sort of faculty who end up on j-boards.

      You have to wonder what the GC of the institution has to say about these fiascos. Either he has no influence over intramural deliberations or he’s as bad as the shnooks who assemble these star chambers.

      1. “The dirty little secret is that they don’t want to proceed according to regular and customary fact-finding procedures.”

        That seems to be correct. Natacha’s swiss cheese arguments are valid because of some sort of visceral sensation, similar to the other article about the grandstanding faculty member. Seems to be the standard operational procedure of the left these days. Don’t make a cognitive response to arguments, just validate by using your hormones and blood pressure. Surely the sign of a quality educational culture and society.

        I thought the Greeks went through all this thinking BS so we didn’t have to. Maybe because they were all white statue people, the visceral response says we shouldn’t be talking about them anymore.

  4. Issac, for once I agree with you( I know, can you believe it.)

  5. It occurs to me, in these sexual assaults that stretch the definition of assault, we are asking too much of the trier of fact. In a case requiring a showing of physical injury or resistance, the trier has a much easier time making a determination than where verbal consent has to be parsed. There is such a thing in this world as a private wrong that does not admit of any public legal remedy. Some matters are best left outside the legal system.

  6. Not allowing appeals is a Conviction Enhancement Tool! It is sooo much easier to find “victims” if you just tip those pesky little scales of justice a tad.

    Like with Poor Old Bill Cosby. And this guy at GWU.

    Women are going to keep on with this crap, and there will be more MGTOW than there is now. (Men Going There Own Way.) As my misogynistic uncle put it, very crudely, “if it wasn’t for “f”ing and frying bacon, men wouldn’t have nothing to do with women.” I once thought that a horrible thing for him to say, but as I have gotten older, and seen more Domestic Relations cases, darn if he wasn’t pretty darn close.

    The whole #metoo crap is really dis-empowering women, because once women’s sexual aspect is diminished, most of them have little else going for them.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – sex dolls are flying off the shelves. They are cheaper than a divorce. BTW, saw Book Club about 4 women of a ‘certain age’ who were reading the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy. Parts were cute. Andy Garcia has held up well as has Steenburgen. Fonda was the oldest and was supposedly the sexpot of the group. Of course, she has been on tv saying she has closed shop “down there”. Diane Keaton is still playing Annie Hall. Candace Bergen has not aged well. However, she has a great scene with Richard Dreyfuss. 🙂

      1. Amen to that. My Uncle said that the Stepford Wives were a dream come true for men. Which that was an old timey movie and then a remake. But yes, most men are kind of simple, and if their wife will not b*tch all the time, and keep the house clean, they are pretty well satisfied.

        But I think there is something in most women’s DNA that keeps them from really being happy. They have to have some drama going on, or get a bunch of narcissistic kicks from being unhappy, depressed, or angry about something. That is what I see from a lot of my girl friends, and from Domestic Relations work. American women are spoiled and crazy, and if I was an American man, there is no way I would ever hook up with one. I would get me some chick from China, or some starving East European girl who was very religious, and thankful just to have food in their mouths on a regular basis.

        Believe me, it is not a happy thing to be so down on my own gender, but I can’t lie about it.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky – saw Deadpool 2 today. There is a romance for the ages. 😉

      2. “Squeeky – sex dolls are flying off the shelves. They are cheaper than a divorce. ”

        Can’t see that working for me Paul, my computer is harder to get along with than my wife [most days].

        I also can’t believe you parted with hard-earned cash accumulated over your lifetime as well as wasting the latter moments of your life on that Hollywood drivel. Watch Citizen Kane again or something!

        1. slohrss29 – my wife had four days off. She requires entertainment on her days off. We saw Avengers, Book Club and Deadpool 2. I had a computer specially built with 3 hard drives that contain roughly 4000 movies and a hundred or so tv shows. Those keep me occupied while she is at work. 🙂

          BTW, if you have not seen The Death of Stalin, do see it, very funny and probably true.

  7. I don’t know about anyone else, but sorry, I’m not bedding anyone named “Gillian Chandler.” So I have to give one mark against the defendant for that one.

  8. The AFT, as they do in every POTUS election, supported only the Demonkrat Jimmy Carter in his first POTUS election. As a reward to the AFT for licking Carter’s boots, Carter created the DOE.

    The darker the skin and the less wealthy the American, the worse have their grades fallen since Carter invented the DOE. Nothing known before nor since has caused or had a worse effect on American education than the DOE. The sooner the DOE burns in hell the sooner can the damage be fixed, and the damage shall never be fixed while the DOE exists, that is certain.

    1. As a reward to the AFT for licking Carter’s boots, Carter created the DOE.

      It was an assemblage of programs scattered across several departments. I don’t think anything consequential was added. The Johnson Administration sponsored a spate of legislation in 1965 which provided for federal intervention where it wasn’t theretofore and college enrollments were inflated with GI Bill instituted in 1945 and Johnson-era legislation. And, of course you’ve had our ghastly court system adding it’s inanities to the mix. Carter’s work wasn’t a shotglass in the bucket.

    2. While we’re at it, the Department was incorporated by Congress. The President only creates staff offices.

  9. Geezis Soetoro Obama black mailed/financially coerced Universities into his desired unlawful weakening of legal protections for male students. Geezis threatened to cancel Federal grants to universities that did not make the demanded policy changes.

    Geezis accomplished several mutually beneficial results. First, he rewarded one of his prime group of supporters (radical feminazis) by removing Constitutional protections for males against fake criminal accusations (buyer’s remorse). Second, he gave lawyers the financial rewards of large retainers for males forced male students into civil court to fight unlawful university discharge. Third, Geezis created an environment whereby useless and worthless affirmative action U administrators could be rewarded with promotions for “virtue signaling” (unlawfully discharging male students for the “crime” of having sex with women suffering from buyer’s remorse, or female dates who are man haters, the type to unlawfully cry rape just to inflict pain on men).

    Triple win for the bisexual Kenyan crack smokin’ nicotine addict Geezis!

  10. Universities are not police. They should not take on the role of police, but should leave criminal investigations to the authorities, and then take action accordingly. At most, they should suspend a student during a criminal investigation. They should have turned this over to the police and cooperated in the investigation.

    A medical examination would reveal tearing consistent with rape or sex with an unconscious person who was not aroused. DNA would be applicable if the suspect claimed they never had relations at all.

    There does need to be some sort of corroborating evidence in a he-said she-said case. Such as bruising, the presence of date rape drugs in the system, an alcohol test, witnesses showing a man carrying an unconscious woman…there has to be something. Because I do believe that women and men have equal rights. Both men and women can lie.

    Also, if two people are so drunk that they look through beer goggles, then why is it only the man who is held criminally responsible? Most people have heard of men who get drunk and sleep with women they regretted. There are women who purposely get men drunk to prey upon them, just as some men do to women. I personally have been acquainted with two women who lied to their boyfriends about being on birth control in order to get pregnant on purpose, thinking it would keep their men from leaving them.

    Merely being a woman does not confer some sort of high moral ground or unassailable character. What would be more pertinent is their character and veracity of statements. Here we have a victim who was proven to make false statements. That casts doubt on her story.

    There are consequences for lying.

    1. Justice should be equal, regardless of race or gender.

      If the university would not have reached the same conclusion if the gender roles were reversed, then it engaged in gender discrimination.

      1. Justice should be equal, regardless of race or gender

        I’m sure the family of the Rev. Matthew Winkler agrees with you.

  11. As I see it, the male is hanging his entire appeal on the issue of credibility as to whether Jane was intoxicated, based on telephone records that show she couldn’t have spoken with a friend who testified that she was tanked and incoherent just before the sex act. OK, but what about Jane’s claim that she said “No”, but he proceeded with raping her? If true, that would be rape regardless of whether she was intoxicated. Clearly an intoxicated person is not capable of consenting to anything, but is JT trying to claim that if it is proven that the telephone call was a lie that everything else that Jane says is also a lie? That’s a huge leap, and one that is not justified under the circumstances.

    One other thing: I agree with the Judge on the point that a gap year is no big deal. It’s amazing to me that GW would allow him to return at all after finding that he raped this woman.

    I also agree with Wild Bill 99. The University should refer such matters to the local prosecutors. If they decide there is probable cause to charge him, he should be suspended pending the outcome of the case.

    1. She lied and suborned perjury. Her uncorroborated claim that he raped her isn’t worth anything. Yes, when she provably lied about a crucial matter, your single best guess is that she’s lying in toto.

      Amusing in these cases how liquor expunges her culpability but never his.

    2. Natacha – the school should suspend both students until the trial is over. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

      1. You’re forgetting one of Nutchacha’s baselines: women have options. Men have obligations.

        1. DSS – you are forgetting Paul C. Schulte’s baseline: men and women are equal and equally culpable.

          1. That’s a defensible principle, adhered to by perhaps 1/3 of the bar and a single-digit share of the faculty and the student affairs apparat.

    3. Natacha:

      The phone records indicate that she lied. The consequence to perjury is that a he-said she-said case comes into doubt. If she told the truth about the rape, then it is unfortunate that she lied.

      I agree that if someone said no and the act proceeded, it’s rape.

      “Clearly an intoxicated person is not capable of consenting to anything”. What if both parties are intoxicated? Why should all of the criminal blame fall to the male, merely because of his gender? That is discriminatory. If there was no force, and that is crucial, but the reasoning is inebriation precludes consent, then both drunk people are equally at fault.

      “but is JT trying to claim that if it is proven that the telephone call was a lie that everything else that Jane says is also a lie?” No. What this is saying is that perjury calls your testimony into question.

      I agree with you that the university should have referred the matter to police. Was there a criminal case? I also agree that anyone found guilty of raping a student, in a court of law, should be expelled as a danger to other students.

      My personal opinion is that it is critical to immediately report an assault to the police, and get a medical exam while there is still evidence. That removes the component of one person’s word against another. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then it is tragic. But you cannot convict anyone without proving a case. There are indeed horrible crimes that are impossible to prove. Convicting based solely on the gender of the accuser, without any supporting evidence, would lead to blatant abuse of the criminal justice system, as we are seeng in the university system.

      1. My personal opinion is t

        You realize the paragraph which succeeds these words is perfectly sensible and that these commonplace observation did not occur to the person to whom you are talking and do not motivate her.

        1. NIS – it was a general observation that can avoid problems like these. I agree that it does not apply to this alleged victim, who could have saved herself a lot of trouble if she’d followed this advice.

          Personally, since she perjured herself, I would treat every statement she makes with suspicion.

          I cannot understand why people are willing to overlook perjury in a he-said she-said case, merely because the accuser is a woman. It is her fault people doubt her word, not ours, because she lied. Did she never read Aesop?

          1. I cannot understand why people are willing to overlook perjury in a he-said she-said case, merely because the accuser is a woman.

            Well, you’re not carrying around a large mass of free-floating hostility and you’re not operating under the illusion that your feelz is what matters.

      2. OK, Karen, details count. Regardless of the matter of intoxication, “Jane” said that she recalled that he turned her over and forced himself from behind her, and that she kept saying “No”. Males have larger muscle masses than females and are generally taller and physically stronger. It is not an equal battle. Statistically, way more men commit rape than women. So, there are more details than just she said “No”. One other thing–some rapists can’t look their victim in the eyes. He was supposedly a very religiously pious virgin. That, coupled with the detail about approaching from behind, are very relevant details to me.

        BTW: testimony is “evidence”. A woman does not need to have trauma to her genitalia in order to prove that she didn’t consent. Also, the presence of DNA does not prove or disprove rape. In fact, in this case, the man does not deny that sex happened, so there would be DNA evidence, which, again, has no bearing on the issue of consent. However, you would have been willing to believe him if he denied it entirely, and that, to me, is very sad indeed, because you would require “supporting evidence”, discounting entirely her statements. At the point when she reported the incident, DNA evidence and physical evidence were long gone, so for someone like you, all he would need to do is deny it entirely. Rapes don’t happen at high noon on the public square. Sexual assault victims frequently don’t report the incident immediately, and this case is a perfect example as to why. Do you have any idea what a rape kit examination involves? In this case, it would have been irrelevant. An untruth about a telephone call does not mean everything else was also a lie. Proof that the call didn’t happen does not exculpate the man, but it is relevant evidence that should have been considered. However, it’s not the only evidence.

        1. Her testimony is properly discarded because she lied on a crucial component of her account. There isn’t anything but her testimony. No amount of gassy blather from you is going to change that.

        2. One should carefully read what Natacha says and then recognize that she and people like her serve on juries. That should make innocent people on trial shake in their boots.

          1. Unless you’ve a perfect storm of Natachas, the worst there would be was a hung jury rather than an acquittal. Very few cases land in front of a petit jury, btw.

            1. NII, when I served on a jury (shoplifting) I learned at least from that jury that people make decisions based on a lot of biases and their ability to understand facts that surround the case. I originally thought the defense attorney stupid for permitting me on that jury because from my profile it was likely I would be adamant in finding the defendant guilty and wanting to throw the book at her but I fought for her innocence. He later told me that he chose me because he wanted someone that could look deeper and understand why she should be found innocent.

              At the end of the trial, it was a 2:2 with 2 unsure and lined up relative to the amount of education. The most educated found her not guilty. (It had a twist. There were videos where it appeared she was guilty but the police let the truly guilty person go with her baby leaving this young naive woman to take the rap.) Had the least educated who was reasonably intelligent had more of a voice it would have been 4:2 guilty and the other one finding her innocent might have wavered. Later, I spoke to the judge because I was annoyed and didn’t think she should have been brought to trial and he said had the jury voted guilty he would have overruled the jury’s verdict.

              1. You had a petit jury trial in a shoplifting case? What,was it a snatch-and-grab at some high-end jewelry store?

                1. Low-end common type store. It was simple shoplifting. I was told our jury had more education than normal because this was a 3 day week.

                  1. I should add that it cost me a lot of money to be there and I tried to get out of it but couldn’t do so in an appropriate fashion. Retrospectively, I wouldn’t trade the money for being on that jury. I learned a lot from the experience and I think that knowledge helped me in future years.

                    1. What state do you live in that you don’t have bench trials in misdemeanor cases?

                    2. It wasn’t shoplifting a single item or two. There was a baby carriage so a lot of stuff was being stolen. The dollar amount stolen was sufficient enough that this wouldn’t be a misdemeanor.

        3. Natacha:

          “he turned her over and forced himself from behind her, and that she kept saying “No”” If that happened, then it was rape. A medical exam would find tearing and bruising from his forcibly restraining her.

          I do not know if she went straight to a hospital, got an exam, and filed a report. The story does not mention any medical evidence, so I think not.

          The problem with making a claim based on your word alone is that there is no evidence. Would you want to be convicted of a crime based only on someone claiming you did something wrong, without having to prove the case? There has got to be something, anything, to give one side more weight than the other. For instance, there could be similar stories of abuse. Or maybe her friends saw her afterwards crying and bruised. There has got to be something besides the accuser was a girl and she said so. Otherwise that’s not justice; it’s a lynch mob. As mentioned previously, going straight to the hospital can avoid many of these cases based only on an accusation.

          “Males have larger muscle masses than females and are generally taller and physically stronger. It is not an equal battle. Statistically, way more men commit rape than women.” I wholeheartedly agree with you. (On a side note, this is why I support the 2nd Amendment. It is the equalizer between men and women.) Your remark makes sense if there was a physical struggle. If he forcibly restrained her there would be physical signs, such as red marks or bruises, that would help her case. That is a different story than she was too drunk to consent.

          “A woman does not need to have trauma to her genitalia in order to prove that she didn’t consent.” Forced intercourse would have no lubrication, and thus would likely cause detectable damage. Since you mentioned statistics, 87% of rape victims have genital injuries visible with a scope. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142744/ Since it is not 100%, that means that 13% of the time, there would be no visible injuries.

          “However, you would have been willing to believe him if he denied it entirely, and that, to me, is very sad indeed.” The problem with claiming to know what another thinks is that the assumption is often wrong. I never said I believed him. You have stated that you believe her. I said that her proven perjury diminished her credibility. Without evidence, in a he-said she-said case where the accuser committed perjury, you cannot convict. Otherwise, I could say that Natacha assaulted me and you would be doomed. That is not justice.

          I have no idea if he is guilty or not. I wasn’t there, and neither were you. If they cannot prove their case, then guilty or innocent, he should go free. If they have no evidence besides the word of a perjurer, than no one can say either way if he did it.

          It is not my fault that I doubt her word. It’s hers, for lying in court.

          Rape is a very serious, soul killing crime. I visited my friend’s roommate in the hospital after she had been kidnapped and gang raped. The doctors said that her injuries were so severe, it was like she’d been hit by a car doing 70. Her head was so swollen I wouldn’t have recognized her. Her head injuries gave her amnesia, so she didn’t recall that entire day. She had no idea what her attackers looked like, had no memories of them or the vicious assault. She was terrified that she could walk right in front of them and have no idea of the danger. The trauma could not be understated.

          I take allegations of rape very seriously. If you make an accusation, you have to prove it, just like any other crime. My heart goes out to every rape victim in the world. If she was a victim, then she has my sympathy. I do not have sufficient information to know her status.

          1. Karen, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not all restraint results in bruising. A man could push you down, flip you over and pull down your pants and you would know you had no chance to win a physical fight. You might not resist further in order to avoid broken bones, a head injury, or maybe even being killed. Contrary to popular belief, a woman is not required to physically fight back and risk serious injury. She doesn’t have to scream until she ruptures her vocal cords, either, risking getting possibly smothered or strangled. Just saying “no” is sufficient. Your problem is that you don’t know that “evidence” includes testimony. There is, therefore, evidence of rape. You don’t think a woman’s word is sufficient evidence standing alone, but that’s not the law. There is evidence that the portion of the claim about a telephone call is untrue. As far as you and other people on this blog are concerned, that’s all that’s necessary to prove she lied about everything. I say: not so fast. There’s other evidence, too.

            I did not say I believe her. I said that proof that the phone call didn’t happen does NOT exculpate him, which is what everyone on this thread has been saying. He’s going to “go free” in any event. He gets a year off from school, but he still gets to return to school, even though the school found that he did commit the act. Turley’s post focuses just on the false phone call and that the university’s policies do not allow reversal just on this basis, but there was other evidence, which the school also heard and considered.

            1. “Karen, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not all restraint results in bruising. A man could push you down, flip you over and pull down your pants and you would know you had no chance to win a physical fight.” Yes, I know. In that scenario, the victim didn’t struggle but gave in. You are right, that would not result in bruising. You have to push against restraint, or resist in some way, to leave a mark.

              Again, what I said was that in order to prove a case, you need some sort of evidence more than one person claiming something happened. That is the basis of our justice system. What exactly are you arguing? That an accusation alone should be enough for a conviction? Please clarify.

              You have no idea what I know or think. Please stop assuming that you do.

              “She doesn’t have to scream until she ruptures her vocal cords, either, risking getting possibly smothered or strangled. Just saying “no” is sufficient.” I did not say anything about vocal chords. Saying no is sufficient for a rape to occur. Proving it is different. Do you understand? How are you going to prove you said no if there is zero evidence? She didn’t even scratch him? Say no twice? Push against the restraint? What if she said no, changed her mind, and then regretted changing her mind? What if she never said no? What if she said no and he forced her? What if she got busted for cheating on her boyfriend and made up the rape? What if she got beer goggles and slept with someone she regretted, and then made up a story? Anything could have happened, including rape. Do you know how you find out? You prove it. If you cannot prove it, you have no case.

              “Your problem is that you don’t know that “evidence” includes testimony. There is, therefore, evidence of rape.” Again, let me remind you that you have no idea what I know. Testimony is not incontrovertible proof. Victim and witness statements are entered into evidence. I have repeatedly said that there has to be something to back up her testimony. In some cases, it is a lifetime of honesty, character witnesses, friends who saw her afterward hysterical…something.

              You appear to be fighting really hard for an accused rapist to be convicted based solely on the word of the alleged victim, with no other evidence than her word, and she has committed perjury. If that sounds like blind justice to you, then we diverge on that issue.

              “I did not say I believe her. I said that proof that the phone call didn’t happen does NOT exculpate him, which is what everyone on this thread has been saying.” OK. Interesting. So you have been arguing passionately that we should believe her and he is guilty, but you did not believe her? OK. I actually did not say that the phone call lie proved him guilty. I spelled this out in great detail. I said that she committed perjury regarding evidence presented in court, and that cast doubt on her credibility. It damaged her case, which was based solely on her word, to my understanding. That is not my fault. It is hers.

              Don’t lie in court. It’s real simple.

            2. I did not say I believe her. I said that proof that the phone call didn’t happen does NOT exculpate him,

              It does, because the evidence against him absent the phone call is her account of the evening and she’s been shown to have lied about the phone call, which discredits the rest of her testimony. The two components of her account are not severable.

  12. Why is this, or any, college interfering in a clearly criminal matter? This should have been immediately turned over to the local police department.

    1. I imagine its a continuation of an older practice of handling things in house for the benefit of the accused, driven in part by the illusion that faculty and administration are superior people and that it’s not apposite for their haut bourgeois clientele to face the music the way working people do. They’re not superior people, of course, and not skilled in this venue. What’s happened in the intervening decades is a cultural shift wherein this was done not to protect young men under a cloud but rather to allow young women revenge on young men who may be cads but have violated neither the law nor institutional rules (but still administered by faculty who maintain the illusion that they are superior people).

  13. The Obama Administration did great damage to our educational system at all levels. Can I point you to Common Core.

    1. No, the system has an enormous quantum of inertia and no one can move it more than an inch or two. The people who attempt that get what Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee got.

    2. Congress enthusiastically passed Common Core, on a bipartisan basis. Obama merely signed it. Common Core was an outgrowth of “No Child Left Behind” from the Bush Administration. Take up your bitch with them.

      1. Common Core was an outgrowth of “No Child Left Behind” from the Bush Administration. Take up your bitch with them.

        IIRC, it was cooked up by the Gates Foundation. ‘No Child Left Behind’ was a co-operative project of Bush officials and Ted Kennedy. See Michelle Ker on the assumptions behind NCLB and Race-to-the-Top and how they differ from the dominant orthodoxies in teachers’ colleges.

      2. Natacha – I spent several years teaching under No Child Left Behind and there is a world of difference with Common Core.

  14. Gw is dangerous. If they endow a man like turley with a “public interest” chair it’s quite obvious. This isn’t surprising.

  15. Newsflash! The student affairs apparat is shot through with MEd.’s who don’t know sh!t from apple butter and fancy themselves the tribunes of various mascot groups du jour. The faculty are in addition shot through with people who fancy their general intelligence makes them omnicompetent. The salaried apparat of academic institutions generally is also shot through with people too arrogant to admit error. You get these disasters because you have a collecting pool of very arrogant people who despise important subfractions of their paying clientele. If you want to stop this, you need to rewrite liability law to hold employees of institutions personally liable for abuse of power. When some dean loses his house over one of these travesties, the rest will start to get the message.

  16. Omitting “confrontation” from the justice system is a seious threat to innocent people everywhere. The U.S. Constitution requires that “accusers” confront the “accused” in a speedy judicial process.

    Today most states operate “Fusion Centers” [unconstitutional blacklisting centers] where the primary tactic appears to be “non-confrontation”. Longterm this tactic destroys innocent people. Although they claim to have corrected the problem, Virginia’s Fusion Center once placed 100% of African-American college students that attended all-black colleges on post-9/11 watchlists – for attending college. None of these students knew they were blacklisted.

    The police officers that fraudulently placed these students on watchlists had absolutely no risk of criminal prosecution for violating federal “color of law” statutes – since they omitted “confrontation” from the legal process. It is a federal violation of the Title 18 Criminal Code for any police officer to blacklist anyone without confrontation. States like Virginia, also uploaded decades old blacklists from local police departments (some dating back to at least the 1980’s) onto post-9/11 watchlists. Lack of “confrontation” created an incentive for this type of fraud with no risk to local police departments. For example: if you dated a police officer’s daughter during the Reagan Administration and had a bad breakup, you might end up on a terrorist watchlist for life. The local officer is never criminally prosecuted for fraud or violating federal criminal statutes.

    The reason “Confrontation” is so vital to any justice system, is that it places a healthy risk of legal penalty on the “accuser” themselves. The accuser is subject to penalty of perjury or contempt of court.

    Removing “Confrontation” from the justice system actually creates an incentive for abuse by some accusers, police officers, prosecutors, etc. If you can place someone under suspicion with no accountability to the accuser, anyone can accuse you of anything.

    America’s most evil practices throughout history usually have a common denominator “non-confrontation with one’s accuser” in a speedy judicial process (ex: Cointelpro, Operation Chaos, Fusion Centers, etc).

    How that could harm anyone today: readers of this post could make a comment on Facebook about police body cameras (a legal First Amendment exercise). A local police officer trolling Facebook may be offended by your perfectly legal opinion or a group you support (Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, etc). Based on your legal activity, the police officer places you on a terrorist-watchlist. The police officer knows he doesn’t have to confront you in order to place you under “lifetime suspicion” – a life sentence of police harassment since you’ve been blacklisted. You have absolutely no legal recourse for the illegal punishment, in retaliation from your legal constitutional exercise. There are no real government watchdogs today. Not even judges will help you, since you can’t prove legal standing – since you’ve never been confronted. Courts only recognize plaintiffs with legal standing.

    The really bad news: once you have been blacklisted and defamed, it can NEVER be repaired. Many police officers and prosecutors had the remorse-gene removed at birth. They will not apologize, admit wrongdoing or make their victims whole again.

    One could make a strong argument , based on government records, that up to 1 million persons have been harmed since 9/11 due to “Non-Confrontation”. Our last hope for reform is the next generation of highschool and college students, so it’s vitally important that young people understand how the American Justice System was designed to operate.

  17. Turley writes: “GW was reducing protections for students accused of such misconduct under pressure from the Department of Education (here and here)”

    That is exactly what Obama did with ‘Promise’. The Parkland killer was excused from so many different crimes and negligent actions that he was able to be hidden under the rug until he shot and killed all those students. We can thank the Progressive movement and Obama for all those deaths and a lot of the sickness we see running rampant in the nation

    1. Turley writes: “GW was reducing protections for students accused of such misconduct under pressure from the Department of Education (here and here)”

      No, the pressure from the federal Education Department gave those twerps the cover to do what they wanted to do anyway. Higher education apparatchiks are very adept at try-every-door noncompliance when its something the don’t want to do (like get rid of racial preference schemes in admissions and financial aid).

      What Turley doesn’t wish to admit is that higher education is shot through with deceitful careerists and deceitful political sectaries. They simply do not merit the discretion the larger society allows them.

      1. “What Turley doesn’t wish to admit is that higher education is shot through with deceitful careerists and deceitful political sectaries. They simply do not merit the discretion the larger society allows them.”

        I think Turley might be moving in that direction. Frankly, I am amazed at the lack of education being provided at these universities that create a new class of indebted citizens. These citizens should be able to sue the administrators of these institutions for bait and switch.

        1. I think Turley might be moving in that direction. Frankly, I am amazed at the lack of education being provided at these universities that create a new class of indebted citizens. These citizens should be able to sue the administrators of these institutions for bait and switch.

          There is tremendous slack because the institutions are insisting on a simulacrum of the schedule of the old-school baccalaureate degree without there being anything resembling a core curriculum. I think true cores evaporated a century ago, but you’d have to look it up. About 30% of students’ time is squandered on accumulating a random set of distribution credits. Nowadays, the threshold to declare a major is commonly 27 credits, rather than the 42 credits which was the norm a generation ago. And, of course there’s been a secular decline in the length of term over the last century. British universities are in session 38 weeks of the year and their baccalaureate students study perhaps 1, 2, or 3 subjects. In addition, it is policy to insist on a bacclaureate degree as a condition to enter an array of professional schools. Here’s what you can do:

          1. Degree programs for academics and the arts would consist of 1, 2, 3, and 4 year programs consisting of courses in that subject or cross-listed courses in other subjects. Teaching institutions could offer the 1 year option or both the 1 and the 2 year option (but not the 2 year exclusively). Research institutions could begin their offerings with the 1st year or the 3d year option, but would be debarred from offering the 2 year option without offering the 1 year option and debarred from offering the 4th year option without offering the 3d year option. Dissertation programs would be limited to a selection of those who had completed 4 years of study and (bar the DMA degree) would be limited to purely academic disciplines and not found in performance-based disciplines like theatre or studio art.

          2. Occupational courses of study would consist of a sequence of classroom work, internship, and stipended apprenticeship. The classification of the program would depend on the number of hours of classroom study, with the 48 credit calendar year degree the mode. You could have short certificate programs ( 30 credits), or 1 and 2 year degrees on an academic calendar (30 and 60 credits), Each program would have it’s own preparatory certificate and a signature set of internships and apprenticeships. Practitioner’s degree programs longer than 2 academic years would be limited to medicine, veterinary medicine, peri-medical occupations (e.g. pharmacy or audiology), and professional psychology. Research degrees would be limited to law, public policy, psychology, agriculture, business administration, information science and technology, engineering disciplines, and (perhaps) communications.

          3. No institution could offer a degree program or sub-degree concentration unless said program were named in a directory adopted by the state legislature. Such a directory would delineate a controlled vocabulary with the names of programs and capsule descriptions of their content. No public institution could offer a degree program absent a formal application by the trustees to the state board of regents, who would solicit public comment from other institutions and grant or withhold permission based on their assessment of what the demand might be for such a program. No private institution could offer a degree or concentration program without the express declaration from the board of trustees.

          4. Private institutions shall receive their income from tuition, room and board charges, non-mandatory service charges, donations, and endowment yield. Institutions with fee-for-service subsidiaries may receive income from their clientele, including insurance re-imbursements. Publication of charges and billing to students and parents would be required to follow a stereotyped format. Financial aid on the books of the institution would have to consist of discounts on tuition and room-and-board and / or living stipends. Other means of finance would include bank loans, which would not be guaranteed by any public authority and would not receive much enhanced consideration in bankruptcy court (just enough to allow a market in student loans to emerge).

          5. Public institutions shall consist of 3 or 4 corporations. Each corporation shall have its own endowment
          and its own donation stream, fundraising staff, comptroller, treasurer &c. The trustees shall be an interlocking directorate governing all the corporations and the financial statements of the whole shall be the statements of the parts stapled together. Each component shall issue bonds and commercial paper in its own name. The components may rent space from each other, but the rental charges shall be according to a schedule specified in state law (adjusted annually per changes in real-estate prices). The corporations shall be as follows: the general institution, the residences and dining halls, the research centers or foundation, and the fee-for-service enterprises (commonly a hospital complex). Aside from donations, endowment income, and non-mandatory customer charges, permissible sources of income shall be as follows: for the general institution, voucher re-imbursements from a dedicated state fund; for the residences and dining halls, voucher re-imbursements from a different dedicated state fund; for the research foundation, possibly the proceeds of a special state bond issue for said purpose and adopted by referendum, but nothing more; for the fee-for-service component, customer charges and insurance reimbursements.

          6. Special state funds to finance public higher education shall receive nothing from the state treasury. Rather, they shall be filled through a dedicated income tax, one for baccalaureate schooling and one for graduate and professional schooling. Such taxes shall have considerable per-person exemptions (adusted annually according to changes in nominal incomes), but a fixed marginal rate. The exemption level for the baccalaureate tax should be set to excuse 60% of the public and that for graduate and professional schools 85% of the public.

          7. Admission to a state institution shall give one a contingent claim on a book of vouchers. The charges to claim one’s vouchers shall be a function of one’s history of attendance at state schools, one’s residence history and the residence history of one’s parents as manifest in the number of special tax returns filed during the applicant’s natural life. Such charges shall be paid into the state treasury to finance the general work of the state government and shall not be directed to higher education at all. You pay the full freight if you’ve received 4 years worth of remitted vouchers in the past (in re baccalaureate study). If you haven’t., the number of tax returns filed by your mother, your father, and you is key. For an 18 year old aspirant, 14 years worth of parental tax returns should suffice for a complete remission of charges; 7 years for remitting 1/2 the face value of the voucher, and so forth.

          8. Each year, the board of regents sets a global freshman matriculation target, which is in turn distributed among the state’s schools according to formula. The redemption value of the vouchers shall be set at a value which equals expected revenue divided by the global matriculation target. The global matriculation target should under normal circumstances be fixed at a given % of the 20-24 year old cohorts, but adjustable downward in cases of recession-driven revenue shortfalls. Matriculation targets for transfer students shall be set according to the quantum of attrition.

          9. Each aspirant for admission to a state’s schools sends one application to a state admissions bureau which has his demographic information, standardized test scores, high-school transcript, and a precis of his family’s tax history. In addition, he sends a card wherein his choices among the state’s schools are rank-ordered. Admission is by algorithm, with no discretion exercised.

          10. Institutional admissions bureaux have one job, which is to review the dossiers of students admitted to see if any qualify for special financial aid. The aid may be dedicated money from bequests or it may be a discretionary budget approved by the trustees. It would be in two forms: a grant to the aspirant to pay the recipients’ charges to the state treasury to allow him to claim his vouchers, or, a living stipend. Institutions have no discretion over who is admitted, just over factors which will induce the prospect to attend the school rather than foregoing his voucher and going elsewhere. In regard to graduate and professional schools, there are some variation in procedure, but one commonality: the school has no discretion over admissions.

          11. Leaving aside clinical faculty, remedial tutors, music tutors, coaches, laboratory instructors, and workshop instructors, faculty would come in three ranks: instructor (on a contract < 5 semesters), lecturer (on a contract from 5-13 semesters), and professor (on a contract over 13 semesters). The titles 'visiting professor' or 'visiting lecturer' would be courtesy titles for instructors who have held a certain rank at a different institution and are on a special pay scale. Faculty might be part-time or full-time. The general rule of operation would be that segmented departments are permitted one p/t faculty member per segment and unsegmented departments are permitted just one part-time faculty member. Retirement would be mandatory at age 67 or after 35 years of contributions to TIAA-CREF (pro-rating years of part-time employment), whichever came later. The provost and the instructional deans would be drawn from the teaching faculty of the school, but the president generally would not be. Only professors would have continuous tenure. Those slots would be rationed. You apply for tenure when a tenure holder in your department retires. Faculty members under the age of 45 and with less than 12 years f/t service would be debarred from applying, and the typical recipient of tenure would be about 55 years old. Cut faculty would get generous severance.

          12. There would be severe disclosure requirements binding on all dissertation programs in re the probability of completing the program and of receiving academic employment upon completion.

            1. It’s a substantive program. You treat people to displays of your disordered emotional life.

          1. Interesting, but to be honest I think schooling is highly overrated. Education, however, is not. We need people competent in the English language, able to read and research on their own, able to use logic and some degree of mathematics.

            For those jobs that require specific knowledge we require rigorous standards, but for some of these jobs, I think apprenticeship is most valuable in addition to the technical skills and knowledge involved with the job.

  18. This penchant for allowing individual institutions like universities, that have their own peculiar bias, to sit in judgement over criminal matters is akin to the nonsense in Islamic and other backward places that allow ‘village elders’ to pass horrific judgement. The universities should defer any issues such as this to civil courts. The laws govern all people. This is an unworkable extreme in the US system of local jurisdiction.

  19. Schools need to get out of the sexual mores policing business. They’re bad at it as JT demonstrates. Plus they’re riddled with leftist ideologues hell bent to punish males whom they either despise or envy. Let ‘em try and teach something. Leave crimes to the police. BTW, I don’t know if this girl was actually sexually assaulted or not. But if she lied about the EE phone call, the die is cast and she ought to be sued for slander.

    1. Schools need to get out of the sexual mores policing business.

      They’re not in that business. If they were in the business, the dormitories would be segregated by sex there would be porters in every dormintory, and persons of the wrong sex found on the premises would be hauled away by security guards and sanctioned by the dean of men (or the dean of women, as the case might be). Known homosexuals would be told to live off campus.

      What they’re in the business of is abusing young men who behave like young men navigating a hedonistic matrix because their premise is that feminine behavior is the gold standard and men are ipso facto defective. Another premise is that women have options, whereas men have obligations.

      Feminine behavior in a hedonistic environment is disgusting to any normal human being, but that grossness is excused by collegiate officials. (And, of course, the grossness of the homosexual population is ignored or conceived of as something thing so very Special, like everything else about homosexual men). The free pass for girls is in the form of allowing them to get revenge on the young men who spurn them by retconning their corrupt encounters as ‘sexual assaults’. Doesn’t a girl have a right to change her mind? (Two months after the fact after she’s failed to get him to take anymore interest in her). It also allows young women to strike poses in front of others by claiming their embarrassing encounters with low-status men were assaults rather than just something they were willing to do on the spur of the moment.

      Young men would be well-advised to get a steady girl from outside the population of students at the institutions where they’ve enrolled. Stay sober and keep it in your pants.

      1. Gee, when I went to college, dorms WERE segregated by sex. And the drawbridges around the women’s dorm were pulled up at ten pm, midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. People who wanted relatively easy access to sex joined fraternities and sororities. Aah, those were the days. The system started to break down when opposite-sex dorm visits were allowed on weekends, but “doors open and three feet on the floor.”

          1. “Therefur,” having open dorms facilitates having sex, either consensual, or forced. I would think that any couple retiring to a dorm room these days, might expect sex to be a result. I doubt they went there to play monopoly or checkers.

  20. Good for you, Mr. Turley.

    Serious allegations of sexual assault belong in the court system, with the accused having the full measure of his rights as an American citizen.

      1. If proven guilty, perhaps. But the case against him does appear to be seriously flawed.

          1. “I wouldn’t jail or suspend folks for mere he said-she said evidence.” So rape with no witnesses is impossible to prove absent DNA evidence. Or must there be at least 1 male or 3 female witnesses (as in the Koran?)

          2. You’re right.
            That’s why it belongs in a court of law, not adjudicated by a University process.

Comments are closed.