Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, January 16, 2018; News Roundup
Topic Started: Jan 16 2018, 04:17 AM (136 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.the-standard.org/news/the-clery-act-crime-alerts-emergency-notifications-timely-warnings/article_27c2bf8c-fa63-11e7-bdf7-af9d54daad5c.html

The Clery Act: Crime alerts, emergency notifications, timely warnings

Chloe Skaar, Senior Reporter Jan 15, 2018 Updated 2 hrs ago (0)

In 1990, the federal government sought transparency for students on college campuses regarding the different crimes, and crime policies, happening around them.

The Clery Act is still used today by universities nationwide and is the reason Missouri State students receive email and text warnings when crime happens on campus.

The act specifies four categories of crimes that the institution must include in its annual security report and in a daily crime log. The school is required to keep the crime log public and accessible during business hours.

These four categories are known as “Clery crimes,” Tom Johnson, director of Safety and Transportation at MSU, said. The first category includes criminal offenses, according to the Clery Center’s website. Those offenses are homicide, sexual assault — ranging from fondling to rape — robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson.

The other three categories are hate crimes; Violence Against Women Act offenses, including domestic and dating violence and stalking; and arrests for disciplinary action, including liquor law violations, drug abuse and weapons law violations.

According to clerycenter.org, “When a crime covered by the Clery Act occurs, campus officials are required to evaluate if there is a serious or ongoing threat to the campus community to determine if a timely warning needs to be issued to all staff and students.

“In the event of an immediate, significant danger to the health or safety of the campus community (e.g. weather, disease outbreak), campus officials may issue an emergency notification. This notification can include the entire campus or be limited to a specific area deemed to be at risk.”

Johnson said this evaluation is made by a group of MSU officials, including the safety and transportation department, the dean of students, a person from the communications department and a general council.

The Springfield Police Department often provides the crime report, Johnson said, but the ultimate decision on whether or not to notify the campus comes from the school.

There are two kinds of notifications required by the Clery Act.

“There’s a difference between what we call a timely warning and an emergency notification,” Johnson said. “In an emergency notification, you might get a text. … It means that there is an active situation and if you don’t do something you could be hurt.

“A timely warning is more like, (a crime) happened, we received a report about it and here are some tips to keep yourself safe and whether there is a threat to campus as a whole.”

The text alerts, Johnson said, are sent out when information must be shared as quickly as possible, which can potentially jeopardize accuracy. In the cases when a timely warning must be issued, officials have a bit more time to organize and check the information, as it is usually reported to them. The idea behind a timely warning is to share what happened and provide tips for prevention.

In either case, a notification is required. But, Johnson said, MSU’s campus has seen a few circumstances when a notification isn’t required by the Clery Act, but campus received one anyway. These are the crime alerts.

“The crime alert is not a Clery Act (requirement),” Johnson said. “Those are issued when it doesn’t meet the Clery Act, but campus still thinks someone should know.”

Johnson said this was the case with the armed robberies near MSU throughout the fall semester of 2017. Safety and Transportation was under no legal obligation to send out the alerts of any armed robbery, but, Johnson said, the department felt the threat to students was serious enough for high alert.

The department also decides when there is not a threat to students.

On Dec. 18, 2017, a rape was reported at the Alpha Kappa Lambda fraternity house. Campus was not notified because the incident wasn’t deemed a threat to anyone else — but the report was available to the public through the school’s daily crime log. Johnson said the department did get feedback from students.

“As far as the sexual assault … yes, it was a Clery crime and, yes, it happened on campus,” Johnson said. “But, quite honestly, there was no reason (to notify) because there wasn’t a threat. … If we know who the perpetrator is, we can litigate that threat.”

Johnson said the bottom line is that the department chooses not to release a notification for every crime so students will understand, when they do receive a notice, to be on high alert or take action, if necessary.

“We analyzed the situation and reviewed it,” Johnson said. “We don’t want to put out notice just to put a notice out. Then people get to a point that they don’t pay much attention. ... If we know the perpetrator and are talking to them, we will not put one out.”

University policy statement on safety and crime alerts:

“In compliance with the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008, and the Jeanne Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. 1092(f) as amended, the purpose of this policy is to ensure procedures are set forth by which the university will provide emergency notification or timely warning to the university community in the event that a significant emergency or dangerous situation is reported that poses an immediate, imminent, or impeding threat to members of the university community; or a crime or incident is reported that poses a threat to members of the University community.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/kafkaesque-campus-sexual-assault-tribunal-at-johnson-wales-alleged-in-lawsuit/

Kafkaesque campus sexual assault tribunal at Johnson & Wales alleged in lawsuit

Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, January 15, 2018 at 8:30pm

Female waited a year to complain, male not given copy of complaint, entire process only 5 weeks, no record of hearing

The more cases of campus sexual assault adjudications we cover, the more we see patterns.

There frequently is an ongoing consensual sexual relationship in which only some of the interactions were claimed to be non-consensual; a delay in reporting the alleged assault; a process in which the accused is left uncertain as to the charges against him; an inability to be represented by counsel or anyone who could give substantive assistance; a university investigation under pressure to “believe” the accuser; the inability to call a key witnesses, the issue of whether there was sufficient affirmative consent (there being no claim that the female said “No”), and of course, the use of alcohol in varying degrees.

In a recent case at Oberlin, we examined the allegations in a context of a 100% conviction rate for students (presumably all or almost all males) who went to formal adjudication. The issue there was whether one sex act as part of a series of sex acts had sufficient affirmative consent, where the female student stated she was “not sober” just prior to performing the sex act.

The case discussed below involves many of these elements.

A male student expelled from Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI, has commenced suit in federal court in Massachusetts, where he lives, claiming he was unlawfully held responsible and expelled after an unfair, prejudged internal judicial process that violated not only ordinary norms of fairness, but also the university’s own guidelines.

The facts alleged and issued involved are all too familiar for these type of cases, according to the detailed factual allegations:

The male and female students had at least six sexual encounters, only two of which were at issue.
The female did not complain for one year.
The complaint was instigated by the female’s boyfriend, but the boyfriend could not be cross-examined because he served as the female student’s hearing advisor.
The accused male student was not given a copy of the complaint, he only had it read to him not long before the hearing.
The investigator who gathered the facts expressed support for the female student from the start.
The entire process from complaint to adjudication took only five weeks.
There was a short time to appeal, during which time the male student retained counsel, but the university would not provide the attorney with a copy of the complaint.
There was not record of the adjudication. making internal appeal and court challenge difficult

The Complaint is embedded at the bottom of this post. I have excerpted the allegations. (All emphasis in the excerpts has been added by me.)

Of course, we don’t know at this stage which of the facts alleged will be disputed. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to a request for comment; defense counsel declined to comment beyond what the university has said in its court papers seeking to move the case from federal court in Massachusetts to federal court Rhode Island.
Overview: Ongoing Sexual Relationship

1. This lawsuit arises from the miscarriage of justice caused by the actions taken by Johnson & Wales University (“JWU” or “the University”) against the Plaintiff (“John”) in October and November of 2017. In the Fall of his junior year he was accused having committed sexual assault, when as a sophomore, he had engaged numerous times in consensual sex with a female student who suddenly now claimed to have withdrawn her consent during the course of the sexual conduct. This disciplinary action was taken against a male student with an unblemished academic and disciplinary record in a time of near viral hysteria regarding campus
sexual assaults.

2. In just five weeks from the date the complaint was formally filed against him, the plaintiff was found guilty of sexual assault, expelled from the University, removed from the campus and branded a sex offender, with his entire future in ruins. The defendant university’s actions are the direct result of a foundationally flawed process of investigation and discipline during which the plaintiff was denied the most basic elements of fairness promised to him by JWU in its Student Handbook.

3. In filing this lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to right these grave wrongs, finish his education, restore his reputation and find some semblance of emotional and psychological wellbeing.

The accused never given a copy of the Complaint against him.

11. The proceeding by JWU against John Doe which gives rise to this lawsuit formally began in September of 2017 when Mary Smith3 filed a formal Complaint (“Complaint Report”) with JWU accompanied by her boyfriend BK.

12. JWU never did and would not give a copy of the formal 18+ page Complaint Report to John Doe and only read it to him in a single pre-disciplinary Hearing meeting with Betsy Gray (the JWU “Director of Student Conduct & Program”). Indeed, JWU refused to give a copy of the Complaint Report to the undersigned counsel when his office requested it when he began representing John Doe in his internal appeal of his expulsion. Undersigned counsel was forced to have it read to him telephonically and told to take notes to the best of his ability. The undersigned facts and quotes come from that report. It is this report that guided the Hearing. Upon information and belief, the testimony of Mary Smith matched her statements in the Complaint Report. Shockingly, JWU failed to make any record whatsoever of the Hearing which occurred against John Doe.4

4 JWU, in essence, expelled John Doe leaving him no reasonable ability to appeal internally. How can an accused
appeal an expulsion arising from a Hearing when no record of what occurred at the Hearing exists? He can’t. JWU’s failure to provide a written copy of the Complaint and make a record of the Hearing is at best bad faith and at worst
an intentional cover-up.

Multiple Sexual Encounters – Female Student initially uncertain if it was assault

Asserted sexual assault incident 1 as stated by the complainant Mary Smith (sex session 5)

14. Mary Smith on or about September 13, 2017 reported to the JWU security office that she had been sexually assaulted. She stated that this assault occurred “one night in October” of 2016 by John Doe. She stated that she had slept with John Doe earlier that night in his dorm room, was sleeping with him in bed, and woke up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. While in the bathroom she said that John Doe followed her into the bathroom pulled down her underwear and had sex with her up against the sink, leaving her with bruising on her hip. She said that this sexual encounter was rougher than she was used to having with him because John Doe was “normally gentle with her” when they had sex.

15. After they finished having sex in the bathroom, Mary Smith and John Doe went back into John Doe’s bed and fell asleep together again. She woke up later that morning and left the room. As stated in the Complaint Report, one of John Doe’s roommates was in the room when this alleged sexual assault occurred and heard nothing. Additionally, according to the Complaint Report, another roommate was walking in when Mary Smith was leaving the building and she seemed to be in good spirits. 5

5 Very disturbingly, JWU never had these two roommates as witnesses at the Hearing and John Doe was never able to question them, yet their exculpatory statements are in the Complaint Report.

16. Mary Smith never took pictures of any bruising, never contacted any official regarding the incident and never went to any medical facility.

Asserted sexual assault incident 2 as stated by the complainant Mary Smith (sex session 6)

17. Approximately a week after this alleged first sexual assault by John Doe, Mary Smith voluntarily came over to John Doe’s dorm room again to have sex with him. She stated in the Complaint Report that she began having “consensual sex” with John Doe but stated that “it was normal at first and not rough and at some point during the consensual sex she became less lubricated and it started to hurt.” She “voiced this to John Doe and gave him the chance to stop and change positions to see if it continued to hurt. She stated that he moved her onto her hands and knees and continued having sex.” It did not hurt anymore in that position but “began to hurt again” and he only stopped when he ejaculated.

18. It is undisputed that the events relayed in Paragraphs 15 and 16 are what the entire assertion of “sexual assault” against John Doe comprises as stated by Mary Smith. Nothing more.

19. When she made the formal complaint approximately a year later, as stated in the Complaint Report, Mary Smith said that she was not sure it was sexual assault that occurred. She said that “she was confused because he had never gotten rough with her like that before and that she was not sure if what occurred was considered sexual assault. She stated that ‘this type of sex was new to her.”6

6 John Doe has denied from the beginning that any “sexual assault” occurred and that sex session 6 was not distinct from session 1 through 4. He further has always claimed that the bathroom sex (session 5) never even happened. Indeed, Mary Smith’s complaint and testimony does not even describe sexual assault.

20. Soon after this asserted second incident of sexual assault occurred, Mary Smith was on social media platform Instagram liking John Doe’s postings.

Hearing on Short Notice with No Explanation of Process, No Assistance

31. On October, 3, 2017, John Doe appeared at a “Pre-Hearing Conference”. This Conference meeting is the only time that John Doe was actually told what the specific charges in the Complaint Report were against him. But John Doe was not allowed to read the Complaint Report, see a copy of it, or have any copy of it whatsoever.

32. At the Pre-Hearing Conference he was told that he must attend a Hearing on the charges on October 20, 2017. He was never told how the Hearing was conducted. He was never told how and if he could question any witnesses, bring any witnesses, bring and/or submit any evidence, whether there would be opening statements or closing statements. In essence, he was left in the dark about the entire procedure. The one thing he was told was that he could have an “Advisor” who could not participate in any way during the Hearing but could sit next to him. He also was never told the names of the three adjudicating Panelists. He was specifically told that he could not have any legal counsel.

45. JWU’s own CRP did not and does not lay out how John Doe was to present his defense at the Hearing. He was a young shy student confronted with serious claims he denied and was (by JWU policy) alone, scared and in the dark. As a matter of fact, he was actually placed in a nearly bare room with a telephone speaker on the table and an “advisor” next to him who, according to the CRP, could “not participate in any manner.”

46. John Doe was never provided any written or oral guidance as to how he could bring evidence to the Hearing (i.e. Instagram postings, texts, ect.) or if he could even bring any at all. He was never provided any written or oral guidance as to how he could bring a witness in his defense and have such witness questioned by him. Indeed, he was never told orally or in writing whether he could question the complainant’s witnesses or the complainant herself.

47. He was never told whether he could/should prepare an opening statement or closing remarks and, even if he could, how long he could speak for. Shockingly, he was never even given a copy of the 18+ page incident report/ complaint brought against him (not even a redacted copy). He was never even reasonably allowed to take notes while the 18+ page statement was read to him. Quite frankly, this failure alone is inherently discriminatory to an accused who understands and learns better from reading.

48. The above failures of internal procedural due process reasonably shock the conscience because even the most rudimentary contractual relationship between parties requires a fair playing field. JWU in the case of John Doe did not follow this basic premise and the promise of good faith of the CRP.

Only Three (3) Days Allowed for Internal Appeal

35. On October 23, 2017, John Doe received a letter stating that the three adjudicating Panelists has ruled that he had committed sexual assault and he was expelled. A copy of the Dismissal Letter is attached as Exhibit D.

36. John Doe was given only three days to appeal and, according to the CRP, only if “Relevant, new information has come to light since the decision was made” and/or “The Conduct Review Process, as outlined, was not followed.”

37. John Doe, with a limited extension, filed his appeal with counsel. It was denied within a few hours by JWU’s Senior Vice President of Administration with no apparent review.

38. Within a period of approximately four weeks, John Doe went from a happy, healthy, thriving student to a sexual offender who was expelled from college, all without any semblance of equitable due process or procedure.

Biased, Pre-Judged Investigative Process

50. From the beginning of the investigation JWU assumed that the Mary Smith was telling the truth and was presumed to be a victim. John Doe was assumed to be at fault. Sgt. Robinson of JWU campus security, the initial primary investigating officer, does not even deny this fact. He wrote in the 18+ page Complaint Report that he e-mailed Mary Smtih on June 2, 2017, the following as his initial communication: “I tried reaching out to you earlier but I was unable to leave a voice message. I emailed you instead. I did not want to delay this matter any longer so I am supplying you with some resources as it has been brought to my attention that you were a victim of sexual assault this past academic year (2016-2017). I want you to know that we are here to support you…”

Biased Decision Making

54. Importantly, the Dismissal Letter itself reveals the bias in the decision making. The Dismissal Letter states that, “The panelists noted that throughout the hearing, the respondent was not able to articulate specific ways in which he gained consent. Rather, he only noted that the complainant never stated that she was uncomfortable after the alleged incidents occurred. The complainant provided very specific information regarding the words and behaviors she used to convey that she did not give consent or withdrew consent.” This reasoning for ruling against John Doe shows that he never had a chance. JWU ruled against him because he could not articulate a negative while the complainant simply reiterated her story. She says it happened and John Doe could not state how he gained consent. How does an accused show evidence of consent when he says it never happened? It cannot be done. She never had to provide evidence that the events actually occurred. The burden was all on him and that burden shift is in violation of the CRP.

Bizarre – Accuser’s Boyfriend Threatens Male Student, and Is Removed from Campus

63. Additionally, BK threatened the life of John Doe on October 21, 2017 (the day after John Doe’s JWU hearing). Since that time, a restraining Order has been issued against BK and, upon information and belief, BK was removed from all JWU campuses.

64. BK’s actions are extremely relevant because it is BK who has been with Mary Smith since she came to campus security in September to file a complaint against John Doe and BK was her “Advisor” at the Hearing.

65. As the Complaint Report says, Mary Smith stated without equivocation in June of 2017 that she was fine and had no complaint against John Doe. But, starting in September when she moved in with BK, the complainant suddenly determined that she had been assaulted and came to campus security. When asked how the alleged assaults had affected her, the complainant stated that it “had affected her relationship with her boyfriend” (BK). A new Hearing, allowing the questioning of BK, will reveal if BK has actually unduly influenced the testimony of the Mary Smith. BK has revealed a high level of violent uncontrolled behavior and his effect upon the proceedings against John Doe is of core relevance.

Legal Claims

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT II – BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

COUNT III – ESTOPPEL AND RELIANCE

COUNT IV – 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Title IX)

COUNT V – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

COUNT VI – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

COUNT VII – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Documents

Complaint (pdf.)

Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)

Response to Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym (pdf.)

Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)

Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)

Opposition to Motion to Transfer Venue (pdf.)

—————————

John Doe v. Johnson & Wales – Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455445/aziz-ansari-allegations-defects-modern-sexual-morality


The Claims Against Aziz Ansari Reveal the Defects of Modern Sexual Morality
No jury would convict a man for assault under these circumstances, but that doesn’t mean Grace is wrong to feel upset.
By David French — January 15, 2018

It was inevitable. The #MeToo movement was going to collide directly with all the ambiguity and pain of the college sexual-assault tribunals. We were going to read not about sexual assault but instead about a date gone wrong — where two parties had different perceptions, and all we could really know is that another young woman would feel used and traumatized, and a confused man would find his reputation in tatters because of a sexual encounter that never at any point (to him) had seemed inappropriate or wrong.

In this case, the young woman is known only as “Grace,” and the man is comedian Aziz Ansari, a certified “woke” celebrity, a darling of the progressive movement, and a genuinely funny man. In a long reported piece in a publication called Babe, Grace tells her side of the story. She met Ansari at an Emmy Awards after-party, they texted back and forth for a few days, and he asked her out. They met at his apartment, had a glass of wine, went out to eat, and then came back to his apartment, where the evening rapidly turned intimate:

He said something along the lines of, “How about you hop up and take a seat?” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself. She remembers feeling uncomfortable at how quickly things escalated.

When Ansari told her he was going to grab a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”

I’ll spare you the details of the rest of the account, but the short summary is that she resisted his efforts to have sex, continued to make out with him (and performed oral sex on him again), then finally put a stop to the evening. He called a car for her, and she left, very upset.

Grace says, “It took a really long time for me to validate this as sexual assault.” But it wasn’t sexual assault — not according to any meaningful legal definition. He was clumsy and aggressive, but no jury in the world would convict a man for assault under these circumstances. In fact, it’s hard to imagine any prosecutor deciding to charge Ansari. Only campus kangaroo courts hear cases like this, and the incidents there often involve copious amounts of alcohol, rendering memories cloudy and fact-finding difficult.

But that doesn’t mean Grace is wrong to feel upset. As much as some sexual revolutionaries try to drain the spiritual and emotional meaning from sex, it is still the most intimate form of human contact, and it leaves marks on a person’s very soul. Under no circumstances should a man treat Grace the way Ansari treated her. It was wrong. Full stop. And when one person mistreats another — especially sexually — there is a high emotional cost.

At the same time, however, Ansari would be right to feel both confused and wronged. Even if the relevant moral standard is “enthusiastic consent” or an “enthusiastic yes,” you could almost certainly put Ansari under a lie detector, and he’d still say that he thought her conduct was happily consensual. After all, they engaged in oral sex within minutes of arriving at his apartment. He asked her (even by her own account) for oral sex, and she immediately obliged. What is he supposed to think?

The bottom line is that these kinds of encounters are the inevitable result of consent morality. You can tweak the definition of consent all you want (“enthusiastic yes,” “yes means yes,” etc.), and these fact patterns will arise constantly and consistently.

The reason is simple. If every single human encounter can be sexualized upon consent, then every single encounter is fraught with potential sexual tension. First dates? Of course. Casual meetings at parties? Absolutely. Business meetings? Sure thing.

And how do we know whether there’s consent? Someone has to ask for that consent. Someone has to be the aggressor. And unless it’s one of those rare Hollywood moments — the kind of organic encounter that happens effortlessly on screen but almost never in real life — one person (usually the guy) is more enthused about the moment, and the other person (usually the girl) feels a degree of pressure and discomfort.

It’s easy to then say, “Well, show that you’re an autonomous, strong person and reject the advance. A truly ‘woke’ man won’t hold it against you.” Yet this stance completely ignores the confusion and uncertainty of the moment. Sometimes people don’t immediately know what they want. Sometimes they don’t want to risk relationships. Sometimes what starts as desire turns into revulsion as an encounter gets awkward.

I’m reading accounts from feminists who scorn Grace. It turns out that lots of women have had similar experiences, and some have come to view them as just the price you pay for sexual liberation. They can absorb the disappointments and move on. Lots of other women (and men) cannot. They’re scarred. They’re wounded. And they don’t really heal.

Human beings have a desperate need for a sexual morality that transcends consent. There is no real price for delayed gratification. There is enormous cost inherent in encounters such as that between Grace and Ansari. Under no circumstances should a man pursue sex on a first date, much less at business meetings, at the office, or at restaurants.

Even if men and women reject Christian morality and believe that waiting for marriage is a bridge too far, the decision to delay sex until well after the formation of a healthy relationship will protect people from an immense amount of heartbreak. When the relationship forms first, people actually talk about their sexual morality and talk about their limits. This happens routinely in Christian relationships, when boyfriends and girlfriends discuss how far is “too far” and take precautions to avoid temptation.

But to ask some people to refrain from seeking sex whenever they want it is like asking ancient pagans to melt their golden idols. The pursuit of sex is a central focus of their lives, and the liberation from sexual morality is for them a central achievement of modern ethics. Even as the collateral damage mounts, they insist that just this or that tiny tweak to their fundamentally libertine hedonism will protect people from shame, guilt, and rage while still preserving absolute sexual freedom.

It won’t work. It can’t work. Human beings were not created to live like that. Morality based on consent alone has always been doomed to fail. How many more souls have to suffer before we rediscover that simple moral fact?

— David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

abb
Jan 16 2018, 04:17 AM
http://www.the-standard.org/news/the-clery-act-crime-alerts-emergency-notifications-timely-warnings/article_27c2bf8c-fa63-11e7-bdf7-af9d54daad5c.html

The Clery Act: Crime alerts, emergency notifications, timely warnings

...On Dec. 18, 2017, a rape was reported at the Alpha Kappa Lambda fraternity house. Campus was not notified because the incident wasn’t deemed a threat to anyone else — but the report was available to the public through the school’s daily crime log. [Tom Johnson, director of Safety and Transportation at MSU] said the department did get feedback from students.

“As far as the sexual assault … yes, it was a Clery crime and, yes, it happened on campus,” Johnson said. “But, quite honestly, there was no reason (to notify) because there wasn’t a threat. … If we know who the perpetrator is, we can litigate that threat.”
The suspect is identified as "the perpetrator" when reported... until he proves his innocence?
.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://apnews.com/693dfc59cb78468ebc769bd0564742ba

By DAVE COLLINS
1/16/18
Yale settles with student who cited false sex-assault claim

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Yale University has settled a lawsuit by a former student who says he was wrongly and unfairly expelled over a false sexual assault allegation in 2012 — the school’s latest move amid criticism over the way it handles sexual misconduct cases.

A federal judge in Hartford signed off on the settlement last week, according to court documents. Terms were undisclosed, but a Yale spokesman said the agreement did not include any payment to the former student or any change in the discipline.

The settlement comes as former Yale basketball team captain Jack Montague sues the Ivy League school over his 2016 expulsion for what he calls false sexual misconduct allegations. Yale’s lawyers said the school and its officials acted appropriately in Montague’s case.

The former student who recently settled the lawsuit is identified only as John Doe in court documents. He says he and another student, who are both Native Americans, had consensual sex in January 2012 and she filed bogus sexual assault allegations in a strange plot to take control of Yale’s Native American Cultural Center.

The lawsuit says Doe and the center’s former director both identify as Lakota Sioux, while the accuser and her friends identify as Navajo. The accuser and others wanted to oust the director and Doe and take control of the center to benefit Navajo students on campus, the lawsuit says. Yale later removed the director based on the request of the accuser because of the director’s support of Doe, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit accused Yale of wrongly suspending Doe and later expelling him during an unfair disciplinary process. Doe also accused the university of discriminating against Native American students.

Doe was arrested on felony sexual assault and unlawful restraint charges. He said he pleaded no contest to a reduced misdemeanor unlawful restraint charge only because of legal costs and assurances by a Yale official that he could return to school. Yale later decided to expel him.

Doe’s lawsuit says he was the “whipping boy” Yale needed to demonstrate a new zero-tolerance sexual misconduct policy.

His misconduct case, the lawsuit says, was the first Yale handled after another sexual misconduct case involving former Yale football team quarterback Patrick Witt.

Witt made headlines in 2011 for giving up an opportunity for a Rhodes Scholarship so he could play against archrival Harvard. He denied later reports that the sexual misconduct case already had derailed the scholarship. Witt’s lawyer said the woman who initially approached Yale officials with the sexual misconduct allegations decided not to pursue it through formal university channels or police.

When asked about Doe’s allegations, Yale spokesman Thomas Conroy said in an email that “Yale is committed to policies that effectively address sexual misconduct and to processes that are fair to all.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/16/if-aziz-ansari-were-a-college-student-he


If Aziz Ansari Were a College Student, He Could Have Been Expelled for Less
Campus Title IX policies punish male students for similarly problematic sexual encounters.

Robby Soave|Jan. 16, 2018 4:18 pm

Aziz AnsariKevin Sullivan/ZUMA Press/NewscomLast week, babe.net published an anonymous woman's account of her date with actor/comedian Aziz Ansari, who she says pressured her into uncomfortable and unwanted sex, failing to heed her "verbal and non-verbal cues."

In response, the internet has produced wave after wave of takes. The Atlantic's Caitlin Flanagan said the article was "3,000 words of revenge porn" and unfit for publication. Vox's Anna North characterized Ansari's behavior as common among all-too-many men, and thus worth discussing. The New York Times's Bari Weiss wrote that if Ansari was guilty of anything, it was "not being a mind reader," and fretted that this incident could tarnish the #MeToo movement. Reason's own Elizabeth Nolan Brown thought both parties—as well as men and women in general—could benefit from more communication about sexual desires.

These are wildly different takes, and there are dozens more perspectives offered in The Washington Post, National Review, Jezebel, on Twitter, and elsewhere. But most of the takes have one thing in common: they explicitly reject the original article's assertion that Aziz Ansari committed sexual assault. Ansari behaved badly, and there is much to be said about how he ignored his date's wishes, thought only of himself, and expected sexual gratification at every turn. But he is not a rapist, most people seem to agree.

And yet, boorish behavior similar to Ansari's—behavior that most pundits say they consider gross but not criminal, at least in Ansari's case—is routinely investigated as sexual misconduct on university campuses. Ansari is lucky he's not a college student; otherwise he could have been accused months or a year after the incident, investigated by a lone administrator with sole power to decide which witnesses to interview, called before a hearing to answer charges he does not fully understand, forbidden from consulting a lawyer or cross-examining his accuser, found responsible for sexual misconduct under a preponderance of the evidence standard, and expelled from campus as required by Title IX, the federal statute that mandates gender equality in schools.

I've covered scores of campus sexual misconduct disputes for Reason. Frequently, the details of the incidents sound a whole lot like the Ansari mess: intoxicated participants, a mutual desire to engage in some level of sexual activity but different expectations as to how far and how fast things should go, "non-verbal cues" that were ignored or perhaps just misunderstood by one party, agreement that a phase of the encounter was consensual but disagreement as to when and whether consent was withdrawn, and gradual re-thinking of the experience as full-on assault. "It took a really long time for me to validate this as sexual assault," Ansari's date, known as "Grace," told babe.net. "I was debating if this was an awkward sexual experience or sexual assault." Student-victims often take a long time to make up their minds about this, too. As Emily Yoffe has noted, about 40 percent of student-victims don't report their alleged rape right away—these complainants wait an average of 11 months.

Consider a few Title IX cases where young men suffered severe consequences for engaging in behavior quite similar to Ansari's, or even less obviously bad.

At Occidental College, a male student, "John Doe," had sex with a female student, "Jane Roe." Jane had every intention of sleeping with John—she had asked him to keep a condom handy. Later, she felt badly about the experience, and was persuaded by a sociology professor that because she was impaired by alcohol during the encounter, she couldn't have given consent. John was eventually expelled.

At Amherst College, two intoxicated students, "John Doe," and "Jane Roe," retired to a dorm room, where Jane performed oral sex on John. John would later claim he blacked out while this was happening, and had little memory of it. Amherst administrators deemed his story "credible," but noted that drunkenness was never an excuse for engaging in nonconsensual sex—which is what Jane accused John of, two years later. He was expelled.

Two Michigan State University students, "Nathan" and "Melanie" agreed to meet up for sex in the summer of 2014. According to Bridge, Melanie was interested in an emotional, romantic relationship, while Nathan just wanted casual sex with a friend. They were interrupted during their sexual encounter—they were doing it in a car—which made Melanie extremely upset, and called to mind a traumatic experience from her past. Nathan, according to Melanie, did a bad job of comforting her, and then tried to resume the encounter by reaching under Melanie's shirt and touching her bra. She said no, and he stopped—and that was the end of their relationship. A year later, Melanie underwent surgery to transition to a man. Afraid of running into Nathan in the men's restroom at MSU, she filed a Title IX complaint alleging that he had violated the university's sexual misconduct policy during the rendezvous in the car. Nathan was found responsible.

At the University of Southern California, "Jane Roe" and "John Doe" met up at an off-campus fraternity party and started dancing. Later that night, they went to a bedroom to have sex. Both agreed that this first encounter was consensual; it was the second encounter that Jane later disputed. This time, two other males—students from a different university—joined them. The sex became rougher than Jane wanted, and one of the other students—not John—slapped Jane on the butt. She started to cry, and the encounter came to a premature end. Jane needed counselling after the incident, and eventually decided to initiate a Title IX complaint. Since John was the only other participant in the orgy who actually attended USC, he became its subject. Jane admitted that John hadn't raped her, but he had failed to prevent the other guys from slapping her—he wasn't attuned to her needs, or looking out for her interests. Accused of 11 separate sexual misconduct violations, John was found guilty of two and suspended for a year.

I could cite dozens more cases of drunken hookups gone wrong, misinterpreted signals, and unmet expectations that culminated in powerful institutions punishing young men for sexual assault. If it would be wrong to call Aziz Ansari a rapist, it was wrong to call these young men rapists. And it would be wrong to export the campus policies under which these young men were found responsible—low evidence standards, affirmative consent, automatic belief in the honesty of accusers—to the rest of the country (something many activists want). Let's hold real sexual abusers accountable without discarding important protections for the accused in the process.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply