Sex

Judge Stops USC from Expelling Football Player Who Failed to Prove He Wasn't a Rapist

Another important win for due process in college sex disputes.

|

Dixon
USC Youtube

Bryce Dixon, a football player who was expelled from the University of Southern California for sexual assault, should resume classes and might be able to rejoin the team, a judge has ruled.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O'Brien barred USC from carrying out the expulsion on the grounds that the university's sexual assault adjudication process was miserably unfair to accused students.

Bryce's attorney, Mark Hathaway, released the following statement:

"Judge O'Brien agreed with Bryce that USC's Title IX sexual misconduct investigation was unfair and lacks due process." said Mark Hathaway, attorney for Bryce Dixon. "USC's investigator acts as police, prosecutor, and judge. There is no hearing, no right to counsel, no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence, and no right to confront witnesses. Courts are beginning to recognize the injustice imposed on students."

USC is still deciding how to respond, though it stands by its initial decision in the Dixon case.

Dixon, 18-years-old at the time of the incident, was accused of sexual assault by a fellow student who was four years his senior and worked as an athletic trainer for the football team. According to Dixon's petition to the court, he had two sexual encounters with the trainer in October 2014.  The first encounter took place in the trainer's room after 3:00 a.m.—both parties had removed their clothes and climbed into bed when Dixon began touching her in a sexual way. After about 10 minutes, the trainer said she wasn't feeling well—she had been drinking—and Dixon left.

Two weeks later, Dixon invited her over to his place to smoke marijuana. They had sex in his room. She was an active participant, according to Dixon's account. His roommate heard them and described it as a "normal-people-having-sex-thing."

Dixon was cleared of wrongdoing in the first encounter. But USC's Title IX investigator, Dr. Allee—who was invested with sole authority to learn the facts of the case and then decide its outcome—judged that Dixon could not definitively establish under the school's affirmative consent standard that the second encounter was consensual, even though the trainer (by her own admission) had never said "no."

According to Allee:

Mr. Dixon did describe behaviors that he believed indicated [the female trainer's] affirmative consent during both incidents. He stated that he believed there was affirmative consent because she was "Lip biting, moaning, kissing me back on my neck type thing." He also stated that he believed she indicated affirmative consent by lying naked on the bed while he put on the condom. However, since both accounts cannot be true, and I find [the female trainer] to be more credible, I find that it is more likely than not that sexual activity on October 23-24, 2014 between [the female trainer] and Mr. Dixon was forcible and nonconsensual.

Other details further complicate the narrative. For one thing, sex between players and trainers is frowned upon, and the trainer might have been worried that a consensual sexual relationship with Dixon would put her job at risk. She also had a boyfriend at the time.

Dixon's win in court comes just a few days after a judge reversed the expulsion of University of Tennessee wrestler Corey Mock, whose due process rights were similarly ignored during a sexual misconduct hearing. The judge in that case was particularly concerned that UT's affirmative consent standard imposed an improperly high burden of proof on Mock, the accused party.

Taken together, these developments in the Mock and Dixon cases are an encouraging sign for advocates of due process that the courts have a role to play in preventing the widespread adoption of "Yes Means Yes" as a legal standard for college sex disputes.

NEXT: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders: Two Pissed-Off Peas in a Pod

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rape culture. Patriarchy. Intersectionality. Derp.

  2. Are these two rulings the harbingers of a reversal in the tide of rape-infantilizing?

    Will the two judges be slapped down?

    Stay tuned to these pages for the next installment!

    1. It’s part and parcel of the activist/SJW type to overreach. They always want to go for far more than they can get, and much of the time get slapped down, because what they want is usually so at odds with actual human nature that it just cannot function in normal human society, whether it be affirmative consent or communism or whatever. Even when they do get what they want, it’s utterly unsustainable.

      We’re seeing the usual pattern here. Which is good, because at least it means they are hitting the “this is not feasible” wall.

      1. Unfortunately everytime they overreach, they move the bar a little closer to their end goal, so that little by little they get closer and closer to their proggie uptopia. And the bar never gets moved back even a little.

      2. It’s because they aren’t really all that interested in their professed goals. It’s the act of imposing their will on others that motivates them. Social justice cadres are just the political manifestation of domination fetishism.

        1. ^ This.

  3. USC’s investigator acts as police, prosecutor, and judge. There is no hearing, no right to counsel, no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence, and no right to confront witnesses.
    .
    Sentence first. Trial afterward.
    OFF WITH HIS HEAD.

  4. This is happening more and more often, but I’m not seeing colleges changing their policies in response. Is it possible that the courts can’t make the consequences for kangaroo courts high enough to make a difference?

    1. seems like they could strike down the OCR’s policy letter on constitutional grounds.

    2. At best, the schools are getting a mixed message. They have one branch of the govt telling them that they must do this and another telling them that they cant.

      1. One gives them money. The other doesn’t.

    3. They could strike down SB-967 in California, at least, and force colleges to remove references to affirmative consent from their policies.

    4. Remember, the colleges are doing this, in significant part, as a result of mandates issued by Barack “I Have a Pen and a Phone” Obama’s Dep’t of Education. Sadly, I am sure that the colleges’ attorneys are telling them that they are better off violating student rights and having courts reverse them when challenging the Department of Education and losing their federal funding as a result.

      1. I’m sorry, that should read “…than challenging the Department of Education..”

        Damn voice memos …

      2. That’s what I’m worried about. The schools are doing this because of consequences of ignoring the DOE. I’m wondering if it’s impossible for the courts to make the punishment harsh enough that the DOE’s punishment isn’t worse.

      3. Yes. Keep in mind though that the Feds require the schools to hire dyed in the wood, no-shit, real SJWs. These are people who have been brainwashed to the point where they cannot think. They are programmed to react to every situation the same way. They always reach the same conclusions.

        Social Justice isn’t about truth. It is about punishing certain groups for past sins and giving a leg up to certain groups who have been oppressed. Once these people get their foot in the door, there they are. You are stuck with them and they are going to keep pulling this kind of bullshit.

        In Dr. Allee’s mind she did the right thing. For anyone with a functioning brain and even a half-way decent moral compass Dr. Allee is an evil bitch.

        1. So what can be done? They are already in power, they promote their own, and I have never heard of a disillusioned true blue SJW.

          1. Oh, they get disillusioned. When they turn on each other. But their disillusionment usually just results in them doing it even harder. Because at their core, they are a type of insane: they are people who actually believe if you do something and it doesn’t work, keep doing it. Harder.

          2. Go back and watch the Yuri Bezmenov videos.

            “You cannot change these people. They will be in positions of power and then you cannot get rid of them. You are stuck.”

            Woodchippers?

      4. Sadly, I am sure that the colleges’ attorneys are telling them that they are better off violating student rights and having courts reverse them when challenging the Department of Education and losing their federal funding as a result.

        That will only change when the lawsuits start awarding damages.

        1. Or when the colleges can say to the DOE, “Hey, we tried to comply, but the judge ordered us…”

          Alternatively, someone will challenge the DOE directives on constitutional grounds. It astounds me that this hasn’t happened yet.

          1. Or when the colleges can say to the DOE, “Hey, we tried to comply, but the judge ordered us…”

            I doubt that will happen. Sure the DoE ordered this. But, do you really think this is something most colleges aren’t all too happy to go along with? The only thing stopping them from doing it individually is fear that other colleges will “cheat” and lure students away. But, you can bet everyone in that Diversity and Equality department is only all too happy to cooperate.

  5. Fuck my Alma Mater! Maybe they should start of School of Law or something, so that they don’t do anything like this again…yeah, that’s it! Maybe call it the Gould School of Law. That way it would be gould, not bad.

    1. The Kafka School of Collegiate Lawgiving.

      As a fellow USC alumnus, I was pleased the most SJW derp had passed it by; it was pretty much all UCX. Now we see that no one is safe.

  6. should start A School of Law…

  7. “However, since both accounts cannot be true,”
    How is it that both things he said cannot be true??? They are making out, get naked touching each other getting each other excited, while she is moaning and biting her lip etc. Then he stops to put on the condom, and they get busy. WTF???

    “and I find [the female trainer] to be more credible,”
    Of course they do. That is what Allee gets paid for. And of course, NO WOMAN EVER LIES ABOUT RAPE!

    1. I think by “both accounts” the guy meant that Dixon’s and the accuser’s accounts both couldn’t be true, not that the lip biting, moaning, etc. was mutually exclusive with putting on a condom.

      1. I went back and re-read it and you must be right. Oh well, I had to bitch about something, and all the usual stuff had already been taken.

        1. And apparently the admin is actually a woman (I think I got her name mixed up with the attorney’s from just briefly scanning the article).

  8. I just graduated from USC, from what I’ve heard this case has put the administration at odds with the athletic department and football program. The school has gotten a lot stricter in this area in the last few years in reaction to some sexual assaults, mostly on the (fraternity/sorority) Row here, this definitely seems to be an over-the-top overreaction that denies due process to the accused. IIRC the school was put on a watchlist or something a couple years back by whatever federal bureacracy oversees Title 9 enforcement.

    1. On to more important matters: Will USC win the Pac 12 this year?

      1. I hope so, but to be honest, I’m a bit skeptical of the hype (especially after the 2012 season). Coming off sanctions, we lack depth, and a few injuries at certain positions could fuck us.

        1. Well, this should help with the TE issues. It’s interesting that last I checked, nothing about this has appeared on Conquest Chronicles.

          1. Yeah, Dixon looked really good last year and the position is a big ? without him. Assuming he is in fact innocent, I’ll be really glad to have him back on the team.

    2. IIRC the school was put on a watchlist or something a couple years back by whatever federal bureacracy oversees Title 9 enforcement.

      As did mine. Not that I have to worry about this since I’m married, but people should be very careful screwing co-eds on a campus that made the Title IX watchlist.

      1. Since I graduated I also don’t have to worry about it, but given the tens of thousands of sexual encounters that take place every year at USC, I think the odds of being falsely accused of rape are low enough that I wouldn’t advise letting it control your college experience.. You probably have a better chance of catching an STD while using a condom.

        1. *To clarify, by “worry about it” I’m strictly talking about having to face school authorities, not being falsely accused of rape in general. But the point stands.

        2. It depends on what you believe the true rate of false accusation to be, but keep in mind that false accusations of sexual assault are far more common than false accusations of rape. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation not too long ago and the chances of a male student being falsely accused of a sex crime during a five year enrollment at college isn’t far from 100 to 1 against.

          The good news is, always having a voice recorder going and exercising even modest care with your partners greatly improves your chances of avoiding a false accusation.

      2. Don’t miss our September issue! See the schools with the HOTTEST Co-Eds on the Title IX Watchlist!

        1. I lol’d.

      3. Although it’s great you married a woman you can trust, it’s still prudent to be careful about sliding into such complacency. There have been plenty of cases over the past few years in which men who had been married for multiple years were accused retroactively of marital rape, even when the wives had not made any verbal or nonverbal indications of refusal, and lost.

    3. The school has gotten a lot stricter in this area in the last few years in reaction to some sexual assaults, mostly on the (fraternity/sorority) Row here, this definitely seems to be an over-the-top overreaction that denies due process to the accused.

      It could also be that they’re making an example by expelling a football player.

      E.g.: “If we’re willing to expel one of our super special student semi-pro athletes, what chance do you proles think you have if you’re acused of rape? Better keep your jimmy in your pants and hope you don’t piss off some vindictive bitch, because since ‘women never lie about rape’ we’ll take her story at face value and then you’re fucked.”

  9. But seriously, if someone accuses you of not getting a yes, how do you prove that? It seems literally impossible, since consent can be withdrawn at any time to matter what happened before (even if you get a signed freakin’ statement beforehand).

    “Justice” from the Social Justice Warriors

  10. Wait a second.

    Wasn’t the trainer sexually harassing the student? How is this any different from a teaching assistant having intimate relations with a student in his or her class? Are we now suggesting that a victim of harassment has to obtain the harasser’s consent, or else the victim is guilty of rape?

    And hasn’t this trainer admitted that she was engaging in illegal activity ? ? smoking marijuana ? ? with a student? Is she going to face consequences for this? Does USC not have a drug-free workplace policy?

    1. And I am sure that none of these considerations would in any way affect her credibility as a witness, now would it?

    2. I would like to know what prompts these girls to make these accusations in the first place.

      From what I have seen every single one of them is nuts and usually will openly admit to being so.

      Also, you are asking the wrong questions. Men are bad. Women are victims. Therefore your assessment of who the guilty party is is all wrong.

      You must be forgetting about the boy who drank too much, passed out and a couple of girls decided to blow him while he was unconscious. A couple of years later the girls accused him of rape based on that incident and he was the one judged guilty.

      See how that works.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if her boyfriend found out about her encounter and she offered,”BUT HE FORCED ME” as some sort of explanation….and then the shit dam broke wide open.

    3. In the bizarro world that is our modern legal system, multiple young men who were raped as minors and in so doing involuntarily conceived children have been slapped by the courts with child support assessments. The reasoning of the courts was that it wasn’t the children’s fault their mothers obtained the semen through assault, and therefore the needs of the child took precedence over the damage caused to the father.

      Funny. That’s the same argument I make about why rape shouldn’t be grounds for abortion. It’s not the child’s fault that it was fathered by an asshole. Alas, the argument doesn’t seem to fly when the situation is reversed. Somehow rape is the only crime for which a child must die for the sins of its father.

      1. Yeah, somehow the clear contradiction in those positions never seem to actually get through. I know people on hear talk about the other side just shutting down and going full emotional screaming match a lot, but this issue right here is the only time I’ve seen it happen. A lot of people can just not handle someone pointing out the similarities and completely lose their shit if you point it out.

        1. They not only lose their shit, they outright accuse you of bad faith and bigotry. It’s mind boggling.

    4. Yeah, I would have liked to see – disregarding individuals – the constellation were statutory rape (student) and “rape because of no affirmative consent under preponderance of the evidence standard” (teacher) cases collide. Given glaring contradictions universities – only, and incompletely – examine when they face a loss of 10m dollars themselves, the inconsistencies, philosphical, logical, and legal, appear utterly astounding. I’m not sure how exactly it’s possible that no coherent concept has been effectively demanded.

  11. Cue Establishment Feminista meltdown in 3? 2? 1??.

  12. “Other details further complicate the narrative.”

    Actually, it is not complicated at all. Petty tyrant attempts an end run around the rule of law and gets slapped. This needs to happen more and more and Diversity and Equality officials deserve to be punished.

    Good on Judge O’Brian.

    I looked up Doc Allee to try and get more info about this case and see the good doc is listed under USC’s Equality and Diversity Directory. Reading down that list is like an opening chapter from 1984. What creepy, creepy people these are.

    1. Equality and Diversity

      The name of a department composed of nothing but women.

      1. Heh.

        I looked at a different directory. I thought I saw the name of one man. I figured he must be one of those metrosexual guys who tow the SJW lion for pussy.

        1. I figured he must be one of those metrosexual guys who tow the SJW lion for pussy.

          No actually, that guy is in prison on fabricated rape charges. He ended up confessing to it because he didn’t want to be labeled a rape denier.

          1. Wait, whut?

            You are making that up, right?

            That is too good to be true. Tell me you are making that up.

            1. I may be making it up but it’s probably true. Fact.

            2. It’s a very dangerous way to go about getting pussy. SJWs reproduce like spiders. The male SJW bestows gifts, does a little dance, the female seems willing and inviting and then as soon as he pulls his foot penis out of her, she destroys him.

              1. Some guys like these kinds of chicks. Adam (“Ad-Rock”) Horovitz of Beastie Boys fame is married to radical feminist SJW Kathleen Hanna. Fortunately for the future of the human race, they’ve never gotten around to procreating.

            3. There used to be 2 men as of 2012. Now there are zero. Something something equity and diversity.

      2. Kegan Allee
        Title IX Investigator, Equity and Diversity

        She received her PhD and second master’s degree from UCSB in Sociology, her first master’s degree in Women’s Studies from San Diego State, and her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Florida.

        PhD in sociology, master’s degree in women’s studies and bachelor’s degree in Poli Sci. If that doesn’t prove the gateway theory of stupid ideologies I don’t know what does.

        She started off innocently enough in a political science department, soon enough the watered down socialist dogma no longer gave her that high she was needing. So she started taking women’s studies and her addiction to irrational social justice spiraled out of control. Finally, after receiving her PhD in sociology, she’d hit rock bottom. Except there is no peak stupidity for leftoids so she basically fell into a bottomless pit of unredeemable stupidity.

        1. Rock bottom is a DrPH with a dissertation on the mental health of Mexican lesbians working as prostitutes (for men!1!!) in border towns.

          1. ^^This describes a real person.

            1. Border towns? Well that makes sense, then it can be made into a story about white male patriarchy, exploiting the noble savage lesbians.

        2. The part that most surprises me is that Dr Allee, with her background was/is not aware that logically it is impossible to prove a negative. This “Title IX Investigator, Equity and Diversity” powertripper and those similarly employed (many are misandrists to the core) should not only be fired from their job with the 1st reversal of their sexist decisions, but personally be made to pay all fines, lawyers’ fees and damages to reputation and/or employability for the men expelled because they couldn’t weren’t allowed to confront their accuser nor present evidence (other than “yes means yes”) in their own defense. Any attempt at self defense is not allowed as this could be considered a micro-aggression towards all rape victims.

      3. So, six of seven highlighted employees are white women, plus one highlighted (I assume she identifies as a) black women, and the secretary with no photo has a Hispanic name. Plus, they have all worked as professional SJWs for their entire careers.
        I’m sure a middle class white-boy like me could get a fair shake from that crew.

    2. “Other details further complicate the narrative.”
      .
      What race was the trainer? A white woman accusing a black man of rape is perpetuating racist stereotypes of black men being rapists, a black woman being accused of lying about a rape is perpetuating racist stereotypes of black people being liars. On the other hand, he is a jock. And on the other other hand, so is she. But she is a woman and he is a man. And we don’t even know if one or the other of these people is Muslim, do we? Or how rich their parents are? What about their stance on a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? Have they ever taken a long car ride with a dog kennel strapped to the top of their car? You’re damn right it gets complicated when right and wrong or guilty or innocent involves so many other factors besides, you know, right and wrong or guilt or innocence.

  13. It’s good that he “got his day in court”, it’s also good that the Title IX tyranny might get scaled back by the courts. But I find it troubling that a judge can waltz in and tell a university that they must associate with person’s X, Y or Z. The only relevant question should be; was the university in breach of contract by expelling this student?

    If not, then the expulsion should stand.

    If so, then of course they ought to be compelled to either fulfill their end of the contract or compensate the student for the breach of contract either by terms spelled out in the contract itself or in lieu of that, whatever the common law would deem appropriate for damages in these sorts of breach of contract suits.

    1. Let’s not overlook that this is a state university.

      States and their creatures don’t have freedom of association. They can only disassociate from people for a limited list of reasons and after providing due process.

      Let’s also not forget that there are contracts in play here. And not just the usual contract with students, but another football scholarship contract. Who knows what they say, but I doubt they say “We can kick you out for any reason or no reason, or even just because we hate men.”

      1. USC is a private school.

        1. They’re following a rule that some would say they’re forced to follow because they suckle at the government teat. They’re a creature of the state even if they’re nominally “private”.

          1. I’m aware of that, but under the standard definition of “state university” USC in no way fits, and it’s a common misconception people from outside the West Coast have of my alma mater, so I wanted to take the time to correct it.

            Also, I really don’t think libertarians want to go down that road of thinking, given how many businesses and organizations in general in the US in some way get money or privileges from the government.

            1. given how many businesses and organizations in general in the US in some way get money or privileges from the government.

              +1 “you didn’t build that”

            2. Um, they are enacting these policies because of title IX and the “dear colleague” letter, so there is that. It’s 6 on one hand, a half dozen on the other.

            3. “Also, I really don’t think libertarians want to go down that road of thinking, given how many businesses and organizations in general in the US in some way get money or privileges from the government.”

              Not so problematic in this case. The university invoked government regulations, “discovered” some implied affirmative-constent requirement. They relied on public law rules, but can only and must then rely on public law rules that are constitutional. If any public-law affirmative-consent rule (be it administrative) makes an unconstitutional condition it neither exists as binding, nor as justifying law. The university did not (exclusively) rely on contractual agreement. It relied on some supposed public law rule which actually has no legitimization, is void.

              If there was a contractual affirmative consent rule, I find it would have to be declared void under standard from contract auspices.

              1. *standard [form] contract

          2. I believe they suckle off the students who in turn suckle off the government teat through federally backed student loans. The private schools (for the most part) are not directly funded by the feds, so the case that the feds have the aithority to dictate policy to them through the student loans is weak.

            1. The private schools (for the most part) are not directly funded by the feds

              Actually the number of private schools that take absolutely no tax money, I think is so small you could count them with your fingers. And to my knowledge, I can count the number of such universities on one finger.

              1. +1 Hillsdale College

            2. The private schools (for the most part) are not directly funded by the feds, so the case that the feds have the aithority to dictate policy to them through the student loans is weak.

              One univerity’s take (they don’t have any federal funding

              Congress has issued several broad mandates tying rules barring race, sex, and handicap discrimination to federal higher education funding.
              In the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Congress extended those mandates to cover an entire college or university if even one student or any part of the university accepts a federal student loan.
              The Act was passed over a veto by Ronald Reagan who declared that it would “vastly and unjustifiably expand the power of the Federal government over the decisions and affairs of private organizations . . . [and] place at risk such cherished values as religious liberty.”
              Federal spending mandates often grant administrative agencies enforcement authority.
              Thus, federal spending mandates often give rise to extensive administrative requirements. Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination, for example, lead to a host of administrative regulations enforcing sex equivalency in intercollegiate athletics.
              Congress can also give private citizens broad rights to sue funding recipients to enforce funding conditions.

              1. Title IX authority is specifically tied to federally backed student loans, which means the federal government should not be considered funding the school directly through that source. Money is fungible, and the loan money should be indistinguishable from the student’s personal funds from.the school’s perspective.

                My point being that the federal government’s claim to have the authority to dictate policy to the schools is weak. I would like to think that libertarians do not believe that government handing out money to large portions of the citizenry gives the feds broad dictatorial powers over businesses and organizations those citizens spend that money on.

            3. Most of the big private schools (like USC) do get money for research grants. At the same time, I’m skeptical of going too far down this road because of how many organizations in general get government funding in some way.

        2. USC is a private school.

          I did not know that.

      2. Let’s not overlook that this is a state university.

        I realize that. And I realize that government blood money befouls everything it touches. But if we take that standard to it’s logical conclusion, then the government effectively owns everything it throws money at. The steaks in your freezer at home were subsidized by the federal government, so I guess that means they can legitimately dictate to you how that steak must be cooked.

        And more to the point, even Affirmative Action in college admissions becomes legitimized since the same free association rights don’t exist in the presence of government funding, the government has complete legitimacy in dictating admissions standards.

        Insofar as the universities are chartered with the state, then the charter would need to support the non-ability of universities to expel students for a wide variety things, which to my knowledge most charters do not preclude expelling students for “moral” reasons et cetera.

        1. “I realize that.”

          I pointed it out above, but just wanted to make sure you saw that this is incorrect. USC isn’t a state school. Granted, it still does receive government money, but I think that further backs up your point regarding the dangers of the federal government owning anything it gives money to.

          1. I agree. No matter how you slice it, it’s still a shit pie.

        2. For true state universities, I wouldn’t even go to the “government funding makes you a creature of the state”

          They were created as creatures of the state, and run as creatures of the state. For that reason, they have no free association rights, period. Whether its in their charter or not makes no difference. The facts are that true state universities are arms of the state, and cannot do anything that the state cannot do.

          For private universities, its a different story. Here, you will need to look at civil remedies, such as breach of contract. But, that’s not the only civil remedy. To pick just one example, being expelled for rape is a potentially defamatory statement by the University, and it had better be ready to back it up.

          1. Lot’s of institutions are chartered with the state or even by the state. Ranging from private corporations, to non-profit organizations to universities. Now since it’s that charter that defines an entity’s relationship to the state, it’s the primary concern in determining to what extent it’s a facet of the state.

            being expelled for rape is a potentially defamatory statement by the University

            Banning an unruly customer from my grocery store would be a potential defamation suit? Interesting…

            1. Banning an unruly customer from my grocery store would be a potential defamation suit?

              If you publish that you’re banning them because they raped the cashier, yes.

              1. Depends on what you say about them, whether its true, and whether you can show actual damage.

                Expelled from school for rape? Worth a defamation suit.

                Expelled from a grocery store for putting a can of creamed corn on the wrong shelf? Sure, you can sue (you can sue anyone for anything), but its pointless, never happens, and won’t happen.

                1. Expelled from a grocery store for putting a can of creamed corn on the wrong shelf being accused of rape?

                  Is that defamation?

                  1. If you didn’t rape anybody, you bet its defamation (or libel, depending).

                    1. If you didn’t rape anybody, you bet its defamation (or libel, depending).

                      So you just cashed in your libertarian card. Free association doesn’t exist. Got it.

                    2. No, you are free to not associate me.

                      You are just not free to lie about why in a way that damages my reputation.

                      Bo.

                    3. No, you are free to not associate me.

                      You are just not free to lie about why in a way that damages my reputation.

                      Bo.

                      It didn’t take you long to resort to ad Hominem. I’ve always had more respect for you than you’re showing here.

                      How would I have lied? “I’m firing you because Jane Doe says you sexually assaulted her in the milk cooler. I can’t have this drama in my store.”

                      Free association means I don’t have to associate with you for any reason if I so choose. I so choose that your status as accused rapist is disruptive to sales.You either believe in free association or you don’t. You’re telling me that you don’t.

                    4. If you didn’t rape anybody, you bet its defamation (or libel, depending).

                      Suppose it was your daughter who accused your customer of rape. Are you duty bound to make him a rapist wedding cake whenever he comes in? You say yes, because to not do so is defamation apparently.

              2. If you publish that you’re banning them because they raped the cashier, yes.

                It’s not that simple and who said anything about publishing? There’s no defamation there unless I post up signs and run an ad in the newspaper or something like that.

                If my cashier accused a customer of rape and I had little reason to doubt the employee, why wouldn’t I ban the customer? Would it be better to fire the accuser for accusing? Otherwise it might be a little awkward when this guy is buying groceries every week at my shop. Does my exercising of free association amount to defamation? If so then there is no such thing as the right to free association at all and everyone is a duty-bound slave to everyone else.

                I have free association rights. I’m within my natural rights to ban the guy because I don’t like his lazy eye if I so choose. Now unless the guy has some contractual right to be there, he has no legal recourse that’s within the bounds of his human liberty.

                1. There’s no defamation there unless I post up signs

                  Alright then, libel.

                  Now, if just ban me but never tell a soul as to why, no defamation or libel. If you tell one single person, orally or in writing, then I can bring a suit.

                  Your free association rights enable you to ban people for any reason or no reason. If, however, in connection with that ban, you tell lies about me that cause me harm, I can sue you for defamation or libel.

                  Happy now? Or do you feel compelled to carry on with your pitch-perfect Bo imitation?

                2. There’s no defamation there unless I post up signs and run an ad in the newspaper or something like that.

                  Wrong!

                  So long as the person to whom a statement has been communicated can understand the meaning of the statement, courts will generally find that the statement has been published.

                  (Shitty but correct) source

                  I can fire your ass and simply tell the assistant manager that I fired you because you raped the cashier, and its still a published statement, defamatory (per se, unless true), and damaging. There are obviously some legal questions left to be answered, but you don’t have to post ads to be defamatory.

                  1. I can fire your ass and simply tell the assistant manager that I fired you because you raped the cashier, and its still a published statement,

                    Not at all. I fire the employee and tell the assistant manager it’s because he was accused of rape by another employee. I never told the manager “he is a rapist”. The only potential defamer in this scenario is the accuser. But as a grocery store owner and employer of grocery store workers, it’s not my job to adjudicate the dispute, its my job to sell fucking bananas. I’m within my rights to fire the accused for being accused, just as I’m within my rights to fire him all sorts of arbitrary reasons unless spelled out differently by contract. I don’t owe someone a job except by contractual agreement. Liberty 101.

                3. There’s no defamation there unless I post up signs and run an ad in the newspaper or something like that.

                  Wrong. “Defamation” is a generic term that encompasses both slander and libel. Slander is defamation by spoken word; libel is defamation by printed word. The store could be accused of defamation regardless of whether it posted signs or took out an ad in the newspaper.

                  That being said, unless the store publicly stated, “We are banning this customer because he raped our cashier” (as opposed to “We are banning this customer because our cashier has alleged that he raped her”), I doubt the customer could win the lawsuit against the grocery store, because the store would not technically have defamed him. The customer might have a case against the cashier, however, although he would have to prove that she was knowingly and with malicious intent trying to destroy his reputation. Plenty of false accusations are made without malicious intent; for example, when someone is assaulted but can’t remember clearly what the assailant looked like.

                  1. Wrong. “Defamation” is a generic term that encompasses both slander and libel. Slander is defamation by spoken word; libel is defamation by printed word. The store could be accused of defamation regardless of whether it posted signs or took out an ad in the newspaper.

                    How did I defame the guy? He was accused of rape. I fire him for being accused of raping another employee. Nothing about my word or deed is defamatory.

                    1. How did I defame the guy?

                      I wasn’t saying you raped the guy; I agreed that the lawsuit would probably fail. I was taking issue with your incorrect definition of “defamation.”

                    2. Shit. I wasn’t saying you defamed the guy. We need an edit button.

              3. If you publish that you’re banning them because they raped the cashier, yes

                banning because they were accused. I’m not saying it would be right or wrong in any particular scenario to ban someone for being accused. Accusations are not created equally. But I absolutely have a right to ban someone for being accused. The truth of the matter is not necessarily what I care about. It’s the impact of the accusations on my business.

            2. Since “shall-issue” corporate law came into being many many moons ago, I don’t think a private corporation, founded by private individuals without any special legislation, counts as being a creature of the state.

              State universities, on the other hand, are generally founded by the state itself, and run under some level of state supervision. I don’t think you can or should conflate them with every single corporation. They can be distinguished from private schools, and should be.

              1. I don’t think you can or should conflate them with every single corporation.

                I didn’t conflate them with every single corporation. I said every single corporation’s relationship to the government is defined by it’s charter with the state. As the point in your first paragraph reinforces; you do look to the “shall issue” legal interpretation of those private corporate charters as a defining characteristic of such a corporation and what differentiates it from other private corporations. Now that we’ve established that we do in fact look to the charter to define the entity, I’m still not sure how exactly a state university’s charter precludes it from enacting morals clause expulsions.

                1. Now that we’ve established that we do in fact look to the charter to define the entity,

                  I’m looking at more than their corporate charter. I’m looking at who founded them, and who runs them.

                  I’m still not sure how exactly a state university’s charter precludes it from enacting morals clause expulsions.

                  Who said anything about a state university’s charter preventing them from enacting morals clause expulsions?

                  I’ve been talking about state universities having no free association rights, and not being able to expel people without meeting the same standards (non-discrimination, due process, etc. etc.) as any other arm of the state.

                  Seriously, I’m having Bo flashbacks here.

                  1. Who said anything about a state university’s charter preventing them from enacting morals clause expulsions?

                    The guy who said such expulsions amount to defamation. You.

                    Seriously, I’m having Bo flashbacks here.

                    With all your support for public accommodations, I was thinking the same thing.

                    1. With all your support for public accommodations

                      I made no statement in support of public accommodations law.

                      I have stated that I think all arms of the state should be treated as such.

                      The guy who said such expulsions amount to defamation.

                      When such expulsions are based on false statements that you raped someone, they are defamatory. Show me again where I said that a state university’s charter was in any way relevant to whether it could have morals clauses.

                    2. I made no statement You did actually. I’m violating your rights if I fired you because of accusations of rape. That’s your claim. One could assume that if I fired an employee for being lazy and the employee disagrees about his laziness, that I’m defamaing him as well.

                      When such expulsions are based on false statements that you raped someone, they are defamatory.

                      It’s not up to me as the employer to investigate the efficacy of rape accusations. It’s up to me to literally mind my own business and hire and fire employees accordingly. I didn’t call him a rapist by firing him. I called him an accused rapist when I cite that as the reason for firing him. And the fact that he’s accused is not up for debate.

                    3. “That being said, unless the store publicly stated, “We are banning this customer because he raped our cashier” (as opposed to “We are banning this customer because our cashier has alleged that he raped her”), I doubt the customer could win the lawsuit against the grocery store, because the store would not technically have defamed him.”

                      Not so sure about that, technically. Consider upstream discrimination. Employer at a car shop does not hire blacks because his customers don’t want blacks fixing their cars. Contrast that with simply reporting an allegation. It looks like the employer – to some extent – makes the rape allegation his own, as he takes it to be likely true. He doesn’t merely report, he’s being partial. And be it partial only like the employer who refuses to hire blacks. That car shop employer may be perfectly fine with blacks fixing cars, but he economically accounts for the preferences of his customers. The rape-allegation employer may know that there was no rape, but he economically accounts for the accuser’s preference (keeping the accused on the pay list would disrupt the work force, damage economic performance).

                    4. He doesn’t merely report, he’s being partial.

                      He’s not reporting anything. He’s saying you’ve been accused of something. I can’t have both you and she in the same place. Due to the disruptive nature of this on my business, I have to fire you.

                      But this all meaningless distinctions you’re drawing because I am within my natural rights not to hire blacks. A garage owner may presently not be legally entitled to exercise his right, but he has it. Because people aren’t slaves to the arbitrary preferences of others by default, only by contract.

                    5. “He’s not reporting anything. He’s saying you’ve been accused of something.”

                      Well, that’s a perfect report right there. What I had in mind, of course, is a newspaper report (tradtionally immune to defamation charges) of facts. Please note that I quoted and assumed that there was a public statement.

                      I agree with the negative liberty take. This, however, was about the law as it is.

          2. State universities are arms of the state that created them and state’s rights should protect them from the federal government’s meddli.g in policy. Let us not confuse our meanings here so as to forget that we are supposed to have layers of competing government as a check on power.

            1. Good point.

      3. At $65k per year, all-in, it is definitely NOT a public school.

    2. If they give back all the gubmint money they’ve received you’d have a better case.

  14. The best part is this:

    Ordinarily, these are strictly he-said/she-said deals.

    This one, you actually have a witness. The room-mate. Who supported the male.

    So, even with he-said AND a witness that it was all halal, you can still get kicked out of school if the crazy bitch who (by feminist definitions) sexually harassed you from her position of power as an employee of the school says that she never said “Yes” in so many syllables while she was harassing you.

    Or something.

    1. Yeah, but the roommate was another dude and therefore untrustworthy in the eyes of the SJW nitwit.

      Because “Bro’s before hos.”

  15. The article doesn’t note it, but Dr. Kegan Allee is a woman. So that makes sense.

    However, since both accounts cannot be true, and I find [the female trainer] to be more credibleam female like the victim, I find that it is more likely than not that sexual activity on October 23-24, 2014 between [the female trainer] and Mr. Dixon was forcible and nonconsensual.

    1. I love that one of their investigators is actually named “Nutter”.

    2. Oh. I forgot about that line. I know they have defined consent out of existence, but now that constitutes force?

      Dude fucks willing girl, but because she didn’t expressly say yes it is exactly the same as street rape in Pakistan.

      SJWs really are unable to think. Everything is upside down and backwards with them.

      1. SJWs really are unable to think. Everything is upside down and backwards with them.

        No, everything is right where they want it to be. Nebulous, shifting and emotionally driven.

      2. “I know they have defined consent out of existence, but now that constitutes force?”

        They’ve redefined consent so as to narrow it. (I guess you agree.) The question marks an excellent observation. Blurring of concepts, again. Impressive.

    3. Every member of the Office of Equity and Diversity is a woman… lol you can’t make this shit up

      1. No self-respecting, heterosexual man would take a job in such a madhouse.

        1. No self-respecting, heterosexual man would take a job in such a madhouse.

          Idea for a spin-of to Parks and Recreation: Ron Swanson gets a job with the USC Office of Equity and Diversity. Wacky hi-jinks ensue.

  16. But remember folks, “yes means yes” isn’t just a tactic for the SJW’s to due away with the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases. Not at all. /sarc

  17. With the absence of any evidence of a crime I have to, of course, side with the accuser. 0.0

  18. Dr. Allee … judged that Dixon could not definitively establish under the school’s affirmative consent standard that the second encounter was consensual, even though the trainer (by her own admission) had never said “no.”

    According to Allee:

    Mr. Dixon did describe behaviors that he believed indicated [the female trainer’s] affirmative consent during both incidents. He stated that he believed there was affirmative consent because she was “Lip biting, moaning, kissing me back on my neck type thing.” He also stated that he believed she indicated affirmative consent by lying naked on the bed while he put on the condom.

    Sounds like anything short of a signed and notorized sex contract wouldn’t have been good enough to prove consent. I know we’ve joked about that before here, but there you go.

  19. Anyone who thinks that getting prior written consent to these encounters will actually help is deluding himself, because even if a practice that bonerkillerific became standard in our culture, the goal posts would simply move a few inches farther. Now our beloved SJWs would claim that the consent agreements were themselves obtained under coercion?or worse, that obtaining said consent agreements was itself prima facie evidence of intent to coerce or assault. Until our society moves away from the patriarchal, outdated presuppositions that 1) women are inherently weak and lacking in agency and 2) sex is somehow intrinsically exploitative and violent, young people?men in particular?will never be safe. I fear for my sons.

    1. Until our society moves away from the patriarchal, outdated presuppositions

      You mis-spelled “feminist”.

      1. Not at all. Patriarchy and feminism are hardly antithetical; they’re reverse sides of the same coin. As an Iranian woman once said to me, only semi-facetiously, patriarchy was invented by women as a way to get men, by nature lazy and shiftless, out of the house, and politics is a pastime to keep men busy. A Mexican woman once boasted almost the exact same thing in my hearing.

        Having spent too many years in patriarchal cultures, I see the truth in their words. The more overtly patriarchal a society portrays itself to be, the more tightly women?vicious, man-hating women?run the show behind the scenes. It’s all just a game. Men are pathetic, pussy-whipped pawns whom the women openly despise. Women are content to let men hold the nominal symbols of power in public, regarding them as little more than dancing marionettes whose sole function is to do their bidding. Women pull all the strings; men are little more than cannon fodder.

        After all, no one oppresses women more than other women. Female genital mutilation? Woman on woman. When King Saud, at the behest of a male Western physician, banned female circumcision, who was it that kicked up a stink? His own wives.

        For some reason I’ll never quite understand, women really hate other women. But they can’t bring themselves to admit that, so they project their loathing onto men and portray us as beasts. The sad thing is we let them get away with it.

        1. For some reason I’ll never quite understand, women really hate other women.

          Have you met any women?

          Kidding!

        2. As the moring DJ I listen to likes to say:

          “Women are crazy… but men are stupid.”

        3. There are trade-offs and aligning interests all over the place. Makes no sense to call this partiarchy. If the intersectionality nonsense was more conistent, it would acknowledge – reveal – that there are several classes of men and several spheres of influence.

          As for women oppressing – let’s say influencing -, they are certainly the ones raising male and female children: mothers, kindergarten, elementary school, etc.
          It’s absurd that realms controlled by woman – children, romance novels, women’s magazines – intrinsically fit sex stereotypes. One would have to completely deny female agency if that’s not actually in line with womens’ true preferences.
          I don’t agree in that men are puppets, but clearly women have some power over us, as we do over them. To mention but a few aspects: male sex deficit, female romance deficit, female preference for dominant men (“bad boys”, “assholes”). I’m wondering whether the rules of ideology and interests groups are always the same and fully capture male-female dynamics. Assuming that women are not a generally disadvantaged group, I wonder what effectively gives them that status, and whether it’s a (temporary) anomaly.

    2. Yup, or that written consent was revoked in a given case, therefore, rape!

  20. I am a rape survivor and overall badass female. INNOCENT means INNOCENT. Yes, even where the “R” word is concerned. Get over it and stop eviscerating the due process, human rights and basic dignity of anyone accused of rape. An accusation, a regret, a power play …does not make it a rape, ladies.

  21. Sorry to see the deterioration of my alma mater.

  22. Why are the women never adjudicated the same as men in these cases? According to the policy adopted by the universities, the male also has to give expressed consent (which is ridiculous. by participating in the act, you’ve given consent. Of course you can withdraw it anytime, but it must be made clear to both parties that you are withdrawing it).
    I’ve seen no mention of this in the media. Are we assuming the men are always the guilty ones? And that regret turns last night’s sex act into sexual assault?

  23. “However, since both accounts cannot be true, and I find [the female trainer] to be more credible”

    Why exactly ? Because she is a woman ? Your sexism is showing… perhaps its time we started to have more men in roles responsible for this type of assessment. It might stop the radical man hating feminist stereotype getting in to these positions and this thing from happening again….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.