| Blog and Media Roundup - Wednesday, January 6, 2015; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 6 2016, 05:19 AM (322 Views) | |
| abb | Jan 6 2016, 05:19 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2016/01/mrs-clintons-terrifying-comments-about.html Tuesday, January 5, 2016 Mrs. Clinton's terrifying comments about rape accusations At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Subsequently, someone asked her this question: “You recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed? But would say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” Hillary Clinton responded: “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Now Hillary Clinton is being attacked by a lot of people on the right--but not for suggesting that men and boys accused of rape should be presumed guilty. She's being attacked for being two-faced, for not automatically believing her husband’s accusers and for working to destroy their credibility. She’s being excoriated, in effect, for not being feminist enough--ironically, by the right. It is certainly fair to highlight the hypocrisy of candidates running for president--that's what the right wants to do in this instance--and Mrs. Clinton’s call to believe rape accusers generally, but not her husband’s rape accusers, is hypocrisy no matter how it is spun. But at least some of Mrs. Clinton's detractors make it sound as if they buy into the "always believe the woman" mantra. In a bizarre irony, the attacks on Mrs. Clinton for defending her husband echo the shrill siren of radical feminism. It reminds me of the time Jessica Valenti mocked the efforts of three mothers who founded Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE), an organization that seeks to raise awareness about the injustices faced by presumptively innocent college students accused of sexual misconduct. Each of the three founders of FACE has been touched directly by campus rape injustice--their sons were ensnared by it. Valenti wrote: "Alternative name for this group: Not My Nigel." Of course, "Not My Nigel" is radical feminist shorthand meaning that women who defend their male loved ones accused of rape are defending rapists. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s detractors are completely ignoring the terrifying elephant in the room. Mrs. Clinton's statement that we must automatically believe that every man and boy accused of rape is a rapist until evidence disproves it is self-evidently preposterous, unjust, and unworthy of even cursory, much less serious, discussion. It is the sort of insanity that animates third world dictatorships. The fact that the woman who stands a good chance of becoming the President of the United States said it and later stood by it, the fact that a lot of people believe it, and the fact that few people dare to publicly challenge it, speaks to a tyranny of political correctness run amok that we've been chronicling here for years—where grievance mongers dictate public policy; where anyone who dares to call for fairness and objectivity in rape cases is branded a woman-hater; and where long-settled principles of due process are turned on their head if the accused has a penis. Feminists defend their puerile mantra by positing that women supposedly hardly ever lie about rape, so they insist it is fair game to assume the guilt of every man or boy accused of rape based on what happens in wholly unrelated cases. This turns Blackstone’s formulation on its head. Beyond that, too often, rape accusers get it wrong. Some lie, and some simply think non-rape is rape. Feminist Brett Sokolow, the undisputed leader of the campus sexual grievance industry, wrote that he sees "case-after-case" where "sincere victims [sic] . . . believe something has happened to them" even though "overwhelming proof" shows it did not. Mr. Sokolow suggested mental health issues may play an important factor in these wrongful accusations. Sokolow recently told Newsweek that colleges have gone "too far" in believing the accuser. Moreover, according to a poll touted by feminists to “prove” the purported college rape epidemic, a frightening percentage of young women mistake consent for rape. Mrs. Clinton and her followers are supporting the institutionalization of misandry--where the accused are guilty by reason of penis. The fact that Clinton's hateful, insane comment is not the foremost issue in this presidential campaign tells us that we've gone beyond the tipping point, and there may be no turning back. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 6 2016, 05:27 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25751/ LAWSUIT: University expelled black athletes for uncorroborated rape, threatened their witnesses Micah Fleck - Columbia University •January 6, 2016 1 2 Share1 0 black-accused-rape.Andrey_Popov.Shutterstock White accuser was ‘bragging’ about the sex days earlier, suit claims A private university in Ohio expelled two black athletes following a “24-hour sham investigation” into rape allegations by a white female, and tried to force witnesses to change their stories using threats and coercion, according to a lawsuit against the school. The University of Findlay also publicly identified them as rapists while they were still appealing their expulsions, says the federal complaint on behalf of Justin Browning, who played on the football team, and Alphonso Baity, who played on the basketball team. It’s the latest lawsuit by students of color accusing their institutions of depriving them of due process in rape investigations. The Churches of God-affiliated university has a history of “discriminating against African-American males in allegations of sexual assault by Caucasian females,” the plaintiffs claim. The suit is saturated with references to race, including the paucity of black people in the town of Findlay and in the student body (both around 2 percent), and it notes that every named individual defendant is white. RELATED: Counsel for accused student in ‘The Hunting Ground’ launches website to challenge the documentary In addition to the board of trustees, Browning and Baity sued the head of student affairs, assistant athletic director, Title IX investigator, housing director, safety and security director, assistant dean of students, the female accuser (“M.K.”) and her resident assistant, and unknown others who were involved in the investigation. The suit was filed Dec. 23. university-of-findlay.Alvin_Trusty.flickr Interview the white girls but not the black guys According to the complaint, Browning and Baity were accused of sexual assault by M.K. 10 days after their “consensual sex” with her in their house – shared with two other student athletes – in September 2014. Witnesses heard her “vocalization” during the sex, which “demonstrated her consent,” the plaintiffs claim. M.K. herself changed her story from an initially positive recalling of events – “bragging” about the sex to friends and describing its particulars – to accusing Browning and Baity of assault “for some reason, unknown by Plaintiffs,” they said. Vice President for Student Affairs David Emsweller rushed the investigation to get the potentially bad exposure behind the school as soon as possible, the complaint states. It was so fast that M.K. herself wasn’t questioned, despite her reference to “existing videos” from the evening in question. RELATED: Black and feminist Harvard law professors call ‘The Hunting Ground’ a piece of ‘propaganda’ The school only interviewed one of three black male witnesses, showing “intentional racial discrimination” against the other two because the first claimed the sex was consensual, the suit states. It interviewed two white female students who were in the house when the alleged assault occurred, but they ended up corroborating the plaintiffs’ account, according to the suit. One was fired from her campus job and the other was “threatened with expulsion” for their testimony. Publicly branded while appeal was pending Echoing a lawsuit against Georgia Tech for its own investigation of an alleged assault, the Findlay suit claims the investigators wrote “summary statements” and threw away their handwritten notes from the witness interviews. The school also failed to wait for Browning to track down videos from the night that he claimed would exonerate him, expelling him first, the suit claims. The plaintiffs believe that M.K. filed a criminal complaint with the local police department, and that it then forwarded the case to the Hancock County prosecutor, but thus far neither plaintiff has been charged. RELATED: Harvard law professors’ criticism of ‘The Hunting Ground’ violates Title IX, filmmakers suggest Just hours after Browning and Baity filed appeals of their expulsion, the school sent a “defamatory” email to the entire campus community identifying Browning and Baity as rapists – “a blatant breach of the confidentiality” of the investigation, the suit states. justin-browning-alphonso-baity.13_ABC.internetArchive The public shaming stung. “Browning and Baity were good students with good reputations,” according to the suit. “They were also important members of their respective sports teams. They were well-liked by the campus community.” According to WFIN, President Katherine Fell said she hoped the expelled students would learn from the incident, and Emsweller said the investigation was so fast because of “the nature of the incident.” Another black athlete accused of rape and expelled a month later The plaintiffs weren’t the last black athletes kicked out of the school that fall. The administration expelled football player Laceem McCall the following month on different rape allegations just a week after he was accused, according to The Courier. While it’s not known whether any colleges have categorized sexual misconduct investigations by the race or ethnicity of accuser and accused, some lawsuits by accused students note their ethnicity. An Asian student accused Amherst College in one high-profile case of targeting “male students of color” in investigations. RELATED: She initiated sex with me when I couldn’t consent, expelled student claims Harvard Law School Prof. Janet Halley, who has served both accusing and accused students in campus sexual-misconduct investigations, has said in congressional testimony that male students of color are accused and punished at “unreasonably high” rates. The University of Findlay’s media relations office did not respond to a request for comment from The College Fix. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jan 6 2016, 07:27 AM Post #3 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Jan 6 2016, 07:30 AM Post #4 |
|
Too bad these guys couldn't have gone to Duke, where such a thing could never, never happen... |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 6 2016, 10:18 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/what-good-is-durham-police-department-body-cameras-if-the-public-cant-see-whats-on-them/Content?oid=4980657 What good is Durham Police Department body cameras if the public can’t see what’s on them? By David Hudnall In theory, Durham police officers wearing body cameras is good for everybody. For citizens distrustful of the Durham Police Department—a not-unreasonable point of view, given that Chief Jose Lopez was just run out of town due, in part, to accusations of racial profiling in the department—body cams offer a degree of protection against police misconduct. For officers who fear false accusations, the body cams are there to back up their version of events. Transparency equals truth. Win-win. But what if the language of the actual body-cam policy undermines that transparency? Last spring, the DPD held several community forums soliciting input from residents about what a good body-camera policy might look like. A few weeks ago, the DPD unveiled its draft proposal outlining that policy. Not everyone is happy about it. "The way the policy looks right now, there's no process by which people can access these videos through public-records requests—not even the individuals involved in the incidents," says Susanna Birdsong, policy counsel for the N.C. ACLU. "The whole reason body cams are such an important tool is because they offer transparency and accountability for police. But if the public can't access the recordings, then what's the point?" Birdsong is referring to the following excerpt from the DPD's draft policy: "Body camera recordings constitute records of a criminal investigation and/or personnel records and are not public records." It then cites two public records statutes—one about criminal investigations, the other on personnel records—neither of which mentions anything about body cameras. The "personnel records" justification is borrowed from the Greensboro Police Department. Personnel records laws are designed to protect the privacy of government employees. Greensboro was the first large city in North Carolina to implement a body-camera policy. In doing so, it declared body-cam footage part of an officer's personnel record. The wobbly hook the GPD hung this hat on was a federal court case in Fayetteville where a judge stated that dash-cam footage might be considered part of an officer's personnel record. "But that is not a binding ruling or a clearly settled question of law," says Jonathan Jones, director of the N.C. Open Government Coalition (and a former Durham County assistant district attorney). "And it was about dash cams, not body cams. No judge in North Carolina has addressed whether body cams are a personnel record. Nor has the General Assembly. And beyond that, the reason police departments are using body cams is not for employee evaluation and review. They're intended to build trust in the community and investigate crimes. So it's a bizarre justification." The "criminal investigation" rationale is also counterintuitive. Few would argue that body-cam footage related to an ongoing investigation should be a matter of public record. But the DPD classifying all body-cam footage as being part of a criminal investigation effectively means that sole discretion is given to the police chief to determine what gets released to the public. One does not need to travel very far back in recent history to find an incident that illuminates the problematic nature of such an arrangement. The Chicago Police Department received and rejected 15 Freedom of Information Act requests for the video of the shooting of Laquan McDonald in the year after the Chicago teenager's death. Only after an independent journalist sued the police department and a judge ordered the video released did the world find out that a Chicago police officer appeared to have murdered McDonald in cold blood. The way Durham's draft proposal is currently written, the DPD would not be required to disclose such a video. Jones argues that the "criminal investigation" statute the DPD cites is not relevant. "There is one case in Randolph County—a police officer shot a UNC student on Highway 85—where [a judge] ruled that a dash-cam video was part of a criminal investigation and not subject to public records requests," Jones says. "But that was a non-binding, non-precedential opinion. The only place that ruling has the authority of law is Randolph County. "In other words," Jones continues, "I can't state unequivocally to you that North Carolina body-cam footage is public record. At the same time, [the DPD] can't say unequivocally that it's not. So I think a policy like this opens Durham up to a legal challenge. Because at some point there's going to be an instance where there's something caught on camera that the public demands to see. And somebody will sue. At some point that is going to happen." One logical way to settle matters would be for the Legislature to enact clear body-camera laws that satisfy the general public's twin desires for personal privacy (no publicly accessible footage of an officer accidentally entering the home of a naked woman) and police accountability (no more law enforcement stonewalling the release of Laquan McDonald-like videos). Rep. John Faircloth, R-Guilford, a former police chief in High Point who sponsored a body-cam bill in the last session, says the issue is a "delicate dance." His bill passed in the House but stalled in the Senate. If passed, it would have essentially killed the argument that body-cam footage should be considered part of an officer's personnel records. But it also would have given police departments discretion over whether to release recordings to the public. "That bill is really more of a first step in what I think will be a long process," Faircloth says. "I was hearing from police departments who believed they were hamstrung by the 'personnel' nature of the current state laws. The bill was designed to give them the ability to release limited information—film, camera records—in order to keep public order in their cities." Faircloth says he's not in favor of giving police departments carte blanche to decide what gets released. "I think, first of all, we ought to go as far as we can to making information available to the public, so long as it doesn't get in the way of critical evidentiary information that would cause us to lower the quality of investigations," Faircloth says. "And past that, I think there's a place here for judicial participation. It'd be similar to how if the police want to search a home, they have to get permission from an uninvolved party—a judge. So if a newspaper wants to view body-camera footage that hasn't been released by the police, they can take their request straight to a judge. "It's also possible," Faircloth adds, "that there's another way of accomplishing this, but we won't know until we all get together in several meetings across the state and come up with the best way to do it." That may take a while. Until then, the DPD's body-cam policy will be the rule of law here. It's not yet set in stone, however: The city is taking feedback on the proposal through Jan. 14. After that, says City Manager Tom Bonfield, there will be briefings in which council members can offer their thoughts. Bonfield will also be making his own recommendations, one of which is that the City Council be a third-party decider of what body-cam footage is in the public interest. "I agree that it's not appropriate for the police department to have absolute power there," he says. Councilman Charlie Reece, who was active in police-reform efforts prior to his election last year, says he also has some issues with the policy. "I have a number of concerns in areas where the policy falls short of the kind of transparency that our community will require here in Durham," Reese told the INDY in an email. "... The subject of a video recording captured by a police-worn body camera should have the right to view that video recording, and in certain circumstances, to have a copy of that footage provided to them. As presently written, the draft general order would provide the Chief of Police (or her designee) with unfettered discretion to approve or reject a request by the subject of such a video to receive a copy of such footage, and I would not support such unfettered discretion." Jones argues that the police have nothing to fear from body cams—and if the policy is properly constructed, the tech might actually improve relations between cops and citizens. "My experience as a prosecutor in Durham was that it was very common for people to say they were mistreated by police, and then you go to the dash-cam video and discover the officer was 100 percent professional," Jones says. "And I think these body-cam videos will show that most of the time. But particularly given the concern about the police department here in recent years, I'm disappointed they're not viewing this as an opportunity to rebuild trust in the community." This article appeared in print with the headline "No watching the watchers" |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 6 2016, 02:57 PM Post #6 |
|
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/university-accused-of-racism-in-campus-sexual-assault-lawsuit/article/2579741?custom_click=rss University accused of racism in campus sexual assault lawsuit By Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) • 1/6/16 2:34 PM Two students expelled for campus sexual assault are suing their university, alleging racism played a role in their case. The two accused students, identified in the lawsuit as Justin Browning and Alphonso Baity, II, are both African-American. They were accused by a white woman, identified in the lawsuit only as M.K., after an encounter at a party. Browning and Baity were expelled despite the fact that every witness interviewed corroborated the accused students' story, and that witnesses came forward to say that M.K. bragged about the encounter as a consensual act. Not only were they expelled, but the expulsions came just two days after the accusation was filed, and campus procedures regarding sexual assault accusations were not followed. The two students are suing the University of Findlay in Ohio, which has a student population of more than 5,000. Of that total, just 3 percent were African-American in the fall of 2014, when the case took place. This percentage is slightly higher than the surrounding city of Findlay, which has an African-American population of just 2 percent. Every university employee who handled the accusation was white. In addition to the usual claims of gender discrimination, violation of due process and breach of contract that are common among accused students suing their schools, Browning and Baity's lawyers are including two counts of racial discrimination. I've read and reported on numerous lawsuits by accused students — and every one has been stunning. So you'll have to believe me when I say this one is the most incredible I have ever seen. In the fall of 2014, Browning and Baity were roommates at a campus-owned house, along with two other men. M.K., the accuser, became friends with all four, and frequented the home numerous times in the first months of the school year. On Sept. 20, 2014, the roommates and some other friends, along with M.K., attended a house party together. The lawsuit alleges that M.K. appeared to drink from a Gatorade bottle, but did not appear intoxicated at all throughout the night. At the party, M.K. hugged Baity (who did not drink at this party) and asked where Browning was. When she found him, she took his phone and entered her number, then led him to the dance floor where the two danced and kissed. M.K. asked Browning to leave the party with her, and the two returned to Browning's residence along with two other friends. The friends talked when they got back to the residence, but after a few minutes, M.K. and Browning went to Browning's room and engaged in sexual activity. The lawsuit makes sure to detail the activity and the consent provided by M.K. The lawsuit claims that "Browning never coerced, threatened, forced, or otherwise made or threatened M.K. to perform any sex act or engage in any type of sexual activity or physical contact." It also says M.K. never told Browning "no" or "stop" and gave no indication, whether directly, indirectly or implicitly, that she did not consent. "To the contrary, M.K. affirmatively consented to the sexual activity(ies) by saying 'yes,'" the lawsuit says. "At all times, M.K. initiated all sexual activity and physical contact of a sexual or intimate nature with Browning, and physically and verbally encouraged and voluntarily consented to such contact and interaction." These same descriptions are used to describe the sexual encounter M.K. had with Baity that evening. When Baity returned to the house later that evening, he found M.K. and Browning engaged in sexual activity in his room. He entered to retrieve a phone charger. When she saw Baity, M.K. suggested he join in the activity, according to the lawsuit. Baity agreed and he and M.K. engaged in sexual activity while Browning remained on his own bed. Baity left the room and joined his friends and roommates in the living room. Soon after, M.K. left the room without clothes on, and laughed about needing to vomit, though she didn't. She remained naked and sat on the couch to talk with everyone. At some point M.K. returned to the bedroom with Browning and again engaged in sexual activity. Again, the lawsuit claims the acts were consensual and that M.K. initiated. Throughout all of this, the roommates and friends heard sounds coming from the bedroom that indicated consensual sexual activity. M.K. left in the morning and returned to her dorm, where she discussed the previous night with other women in the dorm, including the resident assistant. According to at least one of these women, M.K. bragged about the evening and her sexual activity with Browning and Baity. M.K. never suggested any sexual assault took place. Around that same time, M.K. also told another of her friends about the sexual activity with Browning and Baity; again, she was bragging. She even interacted with Baity and his friends in the days following the encounter. Yet 10 days later, M.K. would accuse Browning and Baity of sexual assault. The university has a duty to investigate sexual assault accusations due to a reinterpretation of Title IX, the federal statute banning sex discrimination. The university claims to provide a "prompt, fair and impartial investigation and resolution to all alleged incidents of discrimination prohibited by Title IX." The school also says it will conduct its investigation within 60 days of receiving a complaint. Two days certainly falls under that timeframe, but given the seriousness of the charges (sexual assault by two men on the same night), two days seems an implausible timeframe to find two students responsible. The university's investigation policy also mentions hearings, but none were ever held. The lawsuit also claims neither Browning nor Baity received specifics about the allegation against them. The university didn't even interview M.K. about her report, nor did it follow up on any of the witnesses M.K. named in her report, according to the lawsuit. The university didn't seek video evidence alluded to by M.K. in her report. The university did interview one of Browning and Baity's African-American roommates. They did not interview their other two African-American witnesses. The students believe this is due to the university believing that "because of their race, ethnicities, and/or gender" the statements of the other two African-American witnesses "would be biased in favor of Plaintiffs and contain no useful information." The lawsuit claims this was racial discrimination against the two accused students as well as the two other African-American witnesses. As evidence for this discrimination, the lawsuit notes that the school interviewed the two white women who were present at the house the night of the encounter. The accused students believed these women were chosen as witnesses because the school thought they would side with the white female accuser. They didn't, however, as the two women corroborated the accused students' version of events. The lawsuit alleges that the women's refusal to side with the accuser led to retaliation against them by the university. One of the female witnesses was terminated from her work-study job and took another position with the university. The other female witness was threatened with expulsion. She was saved when her mother called the school. Further, the university appeared to try and bring up Baity's past sexual history by interviewing a woman he previously dated (who was not present on the night in question). This, too, did not turn out well for the university, as the woman said that Baity was always respectful with her and never forced or coerced her into sex. She also said he was never violent or abusive. Despite witnesses corroborating the accused students' side of the story, Browning and Baity were expelled two days later. No recordings or transcriptions exist of any interviews conducted by the university. In a bizarre procedure, two administrators would interview a witness and take separate notes, then one of the two would create a "summary" statement and combine the notes. The original, separate notes would then be discarded. On Oct. 3, 2014, two days after M.K. filed her complaint and 13 days after the sexual encounter, Browning and Baity received expulsion letters. Each student was allowed to appeal the decision within 72 hours, and even though they were forced to move back home (each lived outside of Ohio), they filed their appeals within the time allowed. Yet before the 72-hour period ended, and before the appeals were heard and decided upon, the university sent out a campus-wide email naming Browning and Baity and announcing their expulsion for sexual assault. One of the original women M.K. bragged to saw the email and was disgusted. She contacted her resident adviser (who had also heard the boasting) to discuss the false accusations. Her resident adviser told her to leave it alone because the matter was closed. Browning and Baity's appeals were both denied (how could they not be, when the entire campus already believed they were guilty?). They each received the same letter about their finalized expulsion — only the names were changed. Another friend of M.K. who had heard her boasting sent an email to the university after the final expulsion letters were sent. This friend told the university that M.K. had bragged about the consensual sexual activity. Two days later — and now a week after the accused students had first been expelled and forced off campus — the university interviewed this friend of M.K. The friend again said that M.K. had bragged about the evening and that everything had been consensual. The same day this friend was interviewed, one of the other African-American roommates who had been present but not interviewed previously, was finally interviewed by the university. He, too, corroborated the accused students' version of events. He also mentioned to the university that videos of the night in question existed, but the university never attempted to locate these videos. The accused students were led to believe that M.K. also went to the police with her accusation but that no charges were filed after a police investigation. Neither student has been charged with a crime. The students allege racial discrimination in their lawsuit, and note that the only other students expelled from the university for sexual assault were other African-Americans, each accused by white women. The students also claim in their lawsuit that university officials have said the school's policy is to find in favor of female accusers. In an email to the Washington Examiner, the University of Findlay defended itself against accusations that it conducted an unfair investigation. "The university conducted this process with integrity and fairness," wrote Joy Shaw, the school's media relations coordinator. "We will vigorously defend the process and our decision." |
![]() |
|
| abb | Jan 6 2016, 05:59 PM Post #7 |
|
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/06/lawsuit-white-student-bragged-about-sex Lawsuit: White Student Bragged About Sex with Black Athletes, Then Got Them Expelled for Rape Allegations of race and gender bias comprise the most unfair campus rape investigation ever, at the University of Findlay. Robby Soave|Jan. 6, 2016 4:45 pm FindlayRuhrfischTwo black athletes have sued a private college in Ohio, the University of Findlay, for expelling them without even a semblance of due process after they were accused of rape by a white female student. The lawsuit, filed by Justin Brown and Alphonso Baity, characterizes Findlay’s investigation of the dispute—which was completed in just 24 hours—as a “sham.” The university failed to interview witnesses who would have corroborated Brown and Baity’s accounts, threatened other witnesses for failing to back up the accuser, and, most damningly, ignored considerable evidence that the accuser did not merely consent to sex—she bragged about it later, according to the lawsuit. While these kinds of lawsuits often raise the specter of gender bias against male students, Brown and Baity’s lawsuit explicitly alleges racial bias. Indeed, this case may represent the most egregious violation of campus due process I have ever heard of. From the lawsuit, courtesy of KC Johnson: Most troubling, the conduct of the University of Findlay’s representatives was intentionally and inherently discriminatory because of Plaintiffs’ race, ethnicities, and gender. As explained in detail below, the University of Findlay has a history of discriminating against African American males in allegations of sexual assault by Caucasian females. Here’s what happened: Brown and Baity were friends and sexual partners of the accuser, a white female identified as “M.K.” On the night of September 21, 2014, M.K. had sex with them—separately, and while they were in the same room—in the house the two men shared with two other black male students. According to the lawsuit, the housemates were present in the common area and could hear some of the sexual activities. At least two other white female students were also present. All agreed that M.K. consented to sex, and could at times hear her consenting to sex. Brown and Baity maintain that M.K. was not just a willing participant, but the prime initiator, of their various encounters that night. M.K. went home the next morning, and bore neither of the alleged perpetrators any ill will. According to the lawsuit, she explicitly told another student (J.F) that the sex was consensual—the lawsuit describes her as “bragging” about it. She also bragged about the encounter to a white female who lived on her floor. Ten days after the encounter, M.K. filed a sexual assault claim with the university. Findlay administrators interviewed Brown and Baity—without telling them the specific nature of the charges against them—but did not speak to their black housemates because they merely presumed these men would defend their friends. Administrators did speak with the white women who were present (an example of racial discrimination, according to the lawsuit), and then, spectacularly, punished them when they disputed M.K.’s version of events. One of the women lost her work-study job, and the other was threatened with expulsion, according to the lawsuit. No one agreed with M.K.’s claims except M.K. herself. On the contrary, all relevant witnesses sided with Brown and Baity. They were expelled 24 hours after M.K. filed the claim. There was no hearing, just a letter in the mail. That wasn’t all. A few hours after they notified Brown and Baity of their expulsions, Findlay administrators sent an email to campus that “specifically identified Browning and Baity, falsely stated that they sexually assaulted a female student, and indicated that Plaintiffs were expelled from the University as a result of this conduct.” M.K.’s white female neighbor, who had heard her refer to the encounter as consensual, tried to speak up but was rebuffed by her residential advisor. The male friend who had also overheard bragging emailed officials to inform them. These appeals fell on deaf ears. Findlay maintains that it did nothing wrong, and is prepared to “vigorously defend” its adjudication process. “The university conducted this process with integrity and fairness," spokesperson Joy Shaw told The Washington Examiner. Keep in mind that the lawsuit is only one side of the story—Findlay may dispute the details. But it’s hard—impossible?—to imagine how. Assuming the lawsuit does not misrepresent the accounts of more than half a dozen people of all races and genders, there is not one shred of evidence to support M.K.’s claim, and mountains of it to support Brown and Baity’s. “I've read and reported on numerous lawsuits by accused students — and every one has been stunning,” wrote The Washington Examiner’s Ashe Schow. “So you'll have to believe me when I say this one is the most incredible I have ever seen.” I agree. Brown and Baity are suing Findlay on counts of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, abridgment of due process, and breach of contract. It will be interesting to see if the racial discrimination aspect gets much traction in the media. Some due process advocates who follow these cases, including Harvard University Law Professor Jeannie Suk, believe black male students are more likely to be falsely accused of sexual assault. The two high-profile accusations of sexual assault in The Hunting Ground film were made against black students Brandon Winston and Jameis Winston (no relation). And yet, as Samantha Harris of the Foundational for Individual Rights in Education reminded me on Twitter, The Hunting Ground filmmakers have maintained that critics of their perspective (like me) are actually just defending “dominant white male power.” It’s sure funny how that works. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Jan 7 2016, 04:28 PM Post #8 |
|
This University of Findlay case certainly warrants its own thread, if desired. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:27 AM Jul 11