Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend

A major win for due process and fairness in campus rape disputes.

|

Kiss
Screenshot via Disney's Snow White / Youtube

A judge rebuked Brandeis University for denying fundamental due process rights to a student who was found guilty of sexual misconduct for a variety of non-violent offenses: most notably, because he had awakened his then-boyfriend with nonconsensual kisses. 

The process that Brandeis employed to investigate the matter was "essentially secret and inquisitorial," according to Dennis Saylor, a federal judge who ruled that the accused student's lawsuit against Brandeis should continue. 

This is a significant victory for advocates of due process in campus sexual misconduct investigations. It's also an implicit skewering of affirmative consent as official policy. The accused, "John Doe," was found responsible for stolen kisses, suggestive touches, and a wandering eye—all within the context of an established sexual relationship. His former partner and accuser, J.C., did not file a complaint with the university until well after the incidents took place. In fact, J.C.'s participation in Brandeis' "sexual assault training" program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship. 

The two began dating in the fall of 2011. They broke up in the summer of 2013. In January 2014, J.C. made a two-sentence accusation against Doe, who was not informed of the nature of the charges against him. He was also denied a lawyer, the opportunity to evaluate evidence against him, and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including his accuser. Brandeis uses the "special investigator" model to handle sexual assault disputes: a single administrator reviews the charges, investigates them, and makes a decision. There was no panel hearing. There was just one person's decision. 

The investigator found Doe guilty on four of 12 charges, according to the court decision: 

First, at the very beginning of their relationship, John placed J.C.'s hand on John's (clothed) groin while they were watching a movie in a dormitory room. J.C. now contends that the sexual contact was unwanted. John denies that the contact was non-consensual, and contends that it was simply the first step in their sexual relationship. Among other things, he notes that the two of them had sexual relations for the first time the very next day, and that they continued to have such relations for most of the next two years. He also contends that J.C. afterward recounted the episode in a humorous manner to friends, although the university would not accept his evidence of that fact. 

Second, John and J.C. frequently slept together in the same bed during their relationship. According to J.C., John would occasionally wake him up by kissing him, and sometimes persisted when J.C. wanted to go back to sleep. 

The other two charges involved Doe checking out J.C. in the shower, and an attempt at oral sex gone wrong. [Related: Students Had BDSM Sex. Male Says He Obeyed Safe Word. GMU Agreed, Expelled Him Anyway.]

The special examiner concluded that Doe's behavior constituted "sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, and sexual misconduct." Taken together, these thing constituted "sexual violence," according to the investigator. 

Doe was not suspended, but Brandeis marked his permanent record. According to his transcript, he was found guilty of "serious sexual transgressions." Consider that for a moment: Brandeis decided that being overly affectionate toward one's boyfriend was a "serious" sexual transgression. 

In reaching this verdict, the investigator made a number of suspicious logical leaps. For instance, J.C.'s alcoholism subsequent to the breakup was counted as evidence in his favor, because other victims of sexual assault have lapsed into similarly destructive behavior. Saylor was quite critical of this thinking. "Surely 'basic fairness' requires more than rote recitations of generalizations about the way some victims of sexual misconduct sometimes react," he wrote. 

Indeed, Saylor was critical of virtually all aspects of the sexual assault adjudication process as mandated by the federal Office for Civil Rights. [Related: Male Student Had Drunken Sex with Female Non-Student. Her Dad Called It Rape. Expulsion Imminent.]

Brooklyn College History professor KC Johnson, an expert on these issues, hailed Saylor's ruling as "without a doubt, the strongest decision by any judge on campus due process since the Dear Colleague letter," which initiated the Education Department's recent wave of Title IX-based due-process suppression. 

Saylor's decision merely holds that the lawsuit has enough merit to proceed: Doe has a reasonable claim that Brandeis violated its contractual promise of "basic fairness." The decision does not take a side in the actual misconduct case. 

However, it's impossible not to peruse the details and see the folly of a mandatory affirmative consent policy. As The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow points out:

So a couple in a committed relationship – even a married couple – would have to follow a strict question-and-answer process for the sex to be considered truly consensual. And that's negated if either party had been drinking. Further, there would be no way toprove the policy was followed unless it was videotaped, as the accusation would boil down to a he said/she said (in this case, a he said/he said) situation.

In a world where affirmative consent is a prerequisite for each and every conceivable sexual act, people who awaken their partners by kissing them are committing assault. 

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Speaking at Florida Gulf Coast University on Saturday

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. Thank God, I was worried sick about this.

    Any news about the queerbaits at Northwestern?

  2. Rico, check your paragraph #2 where you list the school name as “Baylor” (is Brandeis elsewhere in the article). Looks like you confused Baylor with Judge Saylor? Starting the weekend early?

    1. Thanks. And good job deducing the incoherent logic of my mistake.

      1. I’m amazed that anyone can make any sense of this.

        1. Jilted ex-boyfriend decides to use the insanely Orwellian system that colleges have installed to target men against his ex. It’s pretty simple actually.

          1. Oh, c’mon, Rhywun, I don’t think we need a grandiose explanation like being jilted for the typo. Simple transient aphasia (aka brain-fart) will do nicely. That and starting the weekend early. 😉

  3. If they were in such a committed relationship, how did this ever come to the attention of the college? I assume the “boyfriend” complained. How else could the college have ever become involved? And if the “boyfriend” was creeped out by all of this enough to complain, you have to wonder just how committed this “relationship” actually was or if it even existed outside of the plaintiff’s head.

    1. Sometimes these sissies feel so bad about the terrible things they’ve done, they turn themselves in.

      1. My best guess is the accuser freaked out and decided he wasn’t really guy and was in fact raped for two years.

        1. My favorite part of the Reason comment section is the wild assumptions that get made about people in various stories even when there is absolutely no evidence supporting those conclusions.

          1. That is why it is called a “guess” and not a conclusion. Words have meanings and some of them are different than others.

            1. My guess is that your guess comes from experience in a regretted, long-term, homosexual relationship.

              1. I have never regretted a single homosexual relationship.

                And it is funny how you think the fact that I would is some kind of an insult. What if I had spent my entire college years taking it up the ass and enjoying every minute of it?

                You seem to think that reflects poorly on me or something. It is almost like your rush to be so gay affirming is over compensating for something.

                1. I have never regretted a single homosexual relationship.

                  Hell, even *I* have regretted one or two of mine.

                2. Hey, it’s just my guess man. I never said you DEFINITELY regretted a homosexual relationship or something. It was just a GUESS. You know what guess means, right??

              2. Fair guess. It is only a guess, after all.

              3. But why did you guess THAT?

          2. John doesn’t make assumptions, he is psychic and reads people’s minds over the internet. It’s infallible.

            1. Yes because the word Guess means ‘assumption” or something. Which part of “best guess” did you have such a problem understanding? Do I just use too many big words for you?

              Seriously, do you actually think idle speculation is the same thing as making an assumption? Did you never learn the difference between the two concepts?

              1. ya plz kp wrd to 3 ltr 4 my tny brn

                Seriously, I’m trolling.

          3. Or you know, you guys could *read the fucking article* which explains how all this came about.

            I mean, you guys give the writers here shit when they don’t do a complete write up and present all the relevant info in the article and then you ignore the article when they do.

            1. Wait, hold up….. someone on the internet commented without reading the article?!?!

              1. There’s articles?

            2. Or you know, you guys could *read the fucking article* which explains how all this came about.

              This really is a pretty egregious case of not reading the article.

          4. “My favorite part of the Reason comment section is the wild assumptions that get made about people in various stories even when there is absolutely no evidence supporting those conclusions.”

            I have to confess I’m a little disappointed that I couldn’t bait anybody into insisting that this place should be a safe space for “sissies and queerbaits”, which is kinda what I was trolling for.

            1. We just assumed you was hopped up on the marijuanas again and thinkin’ you was a toad.

    2. I am being fallacious but Soave seems to take the fact that they were in a relationship for granted. That seems to have been a fact in dispute. John denies that the contact was non-consensual, and contends that it was simply the first step in their sexual relationship. What says that the defendant is telling the truth there?

      1. It would be awfully hard to wake someone up with kisses in your own bed unless the two of you were in some kind of relationship.

        1. You would think so. But never underestimate how strange and stupid people can be.

      2. This is from Judge Saylor’s decision:

        John Doe and J.C. entered Brandeis University as freshmen in the fall of 2011. Both
        were then approximately 18 years old. In September, they began to have sexual relations. By
        October, they considered each other boyfriends, and for the next 21 months they were in a
        romantic and sexual relationship. Their friends believed that they were “happy” and
        “comfortable” together.
        In the summer of 2013, between their sophomore and junior years, J.C. broke up with
        John.

        1. Of course, it is possible that someone you are in a committed relationship with does shit that you don’t like and shit that you don’t consent to. The fact that they were in a relationship makes it impossible to say that these instances were non-consensual beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not however mean that it is impossible that they happened as the accuser said they did.

          1. John, there’s ‘things you do to me that violate my person’ and there’s ‘things you do that I wish you wouldn’t do’ in relationships.

            The former are non-consensual, the latter are not.

    3. Um, the “victim” didn’t report any of this until after they broke up. After dating for two years.

      Did you even read the post?

      1. Yes. Do you know anything at all about sexual assault cases? Failure to immediately report is often not inconsistent with it being true. Maybe he didn’t consent but didn’t want to get the guy in trouble and then reconsidered that after they broke up?

        Imagine if the accused had actually raped him and the victim for whatever reason didn’t report it until finally at the end of a two year dysfunctional relationship decided “yes i am finally going to tell the univeristy what he did”. Would you say “hey you didn’t report it until they broke up”?

        1. I’m just going with what seems to me the most likely explanation here.

          You’re twisting yourself in knots trying to posit that the “victim” isn’t even gay.

          1. Yes. It is the most likely. But I wouldn’t say we can say for sure the guy is actually lying. That is my point.

            1. The point at issue here is not whether or not the plaintiff is assumed to be lying – it’s that the plaintiff was assumed to be telling the truth and the accused was given no chance to defend himself. The judge is saying the accused should have a right to defend himself.

              Are you arguing that we should take the accuser’s word as final and not allow the accused to defend himself?

          2. The decision provides more details on what actually happened.

            The complaint alleges that John was “unsure of his sexual orientation, and had never
            engaged in sexual activity with another man.”. J.C. was “openly gay and sexually experienced”; John was neither. The two quickly became “close friends”; J.C. “knew that
            John was attracted to him, and they began to flirt with each other.”
            John and J.C. began having sexual relations in mid-September 2011.
            “In October 2011, John ‘came out of the closet’ to his parents, and he and J.C. revealed to their Brandeis friends that they were boyfriends.”

            In July 2013, J.C. broke up with John. J.C. did so because he “felt they had
            lost a connection” and because “John was not strong-willed enough”; he wanted a “more
            forceful” partner who would “stand up to him more.”

            In January 2014, J.C. “observed that a gay male student seemed to be attracted to John.” J.C. was also attracted to the student, and John believed that J.C. was jealous of his
            interest in the other man. On January 13, 2014, J.C. sent the student a
            Facebook “friend request,” which the student declined. The next day, January 14, 2014?more than six months after their relationship ended, and approximately 28 months after their first sexual contact?J.C. accused John for the first time of sexual misconduct.

            1. “John was not strong-willed enough”; he wanted a “more
              forceful” partner who would “stand up to him more.”

              Uh, the guy who sexually assaulted you wouldn’t stand up to you?

        2. Would you say “hey you didn’t report it until they broke up”?

          Uh, yes? Obviously? That’s incredibly strong evidence that there was no rape

    4. “His FORMER PARTNER and accuser, J.C., did not file a complaint with the university until well after the incidents took place. In fact, J.C.’s participation in Brandeis’ ‘sexual assault training’ program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship.” (emphasis added)

      The miracle of literacy and reading can answer all your questions!!

      It was a former relationship that the random ex-boyfriend decided was “abuse” after going to a school-run program that probably over-defined assault. As detailed in the article above.

      1. Whatever you humorless dumb ass. Look up the word fallacious at dictionary.com. I use these words but I can’t teach you what they mean.

        Also consider the fact that just because you are in a relationship doesn’t preclude the possibility that your partner does things without your consent. They recognized marital rape a long time ago.

        1. Let’s break your original comment down and examine the evidence for you not having read the article.

          “If they were in such a committed relationship, how did this ever come to the attention of the college? I assume the “boyfriend” complained.”

          Your assumption is true. Your assumption would not be an assumption had you read the article in which the fact that the boyfriend complained was plainly stated.

          “How else could the college have ever become involved? And if the “boyfriend” was creeped out by all of this enough to complain, you have to wonder just how committed this “relationship” actually was or if it even existed outside of the plaintiff’s head.”

          It clearly did, or else the accuser would have labeled all sexual encounters had with the defendant as abuse, which he did not.

          “Also consider the fact that just because you are in a relationship doesn’t preclude the possibility that your partner does things without your consent. They recognized marital rape a long time ago”

          Well, OBVIOUSLY, but my comment addresses YOUR posit that the relationship may not have even existed. I never once stated the idea that them being in a relationship meant no rape occurred. I was addressing your comments of the relationship possibly having never existed, and your questions on how it came to the attention of the administration, questions that are ANSWERED by the article you CLEARLY did not read.

        2. Did you mean facetious? I’m familiar with folks claiming they were being facetious, particularly in the context of pointing our the deficiencies of another’s sense of humor, but it is a rare thing for someone to proclaim their own argument fallacious.

          1. +1 John-o.

          2. I assumed he meant fellatious.

            1. This entire John subthread has been entertaining

    5. Basically your theories fall short because of one detail:

      Not every sex act the couple had was claimed to be abuse by the accuser. For example, absent from his abuse claims is the sexual encounter had the day after the unwanted groin-region touching.

      If some of this relationship was indeed consensual, as the accuser is not claiming every facet of it was non-consensual, then it is in fact a “relationship” in truth.

      1. That is true. But the fact that some or even the vast majority of it was consensual doesn’t mean some of it wasn’t.

        1. I never made any sort of logical posit contrary to the idea that the fact that some of it was consensual doesn’t mean some was not. I made the posit that some of it was obviously consensual as the unread article discusses in relation to your posit that the relationship in question may not have even existed.

          Now you appear to be reading things that are not present in my comments at the same time you do not seem to read the statements present in the above article. Weird.

    6. I assume the “boyfriend” complained.

      ambiguous pronoun.

    7. It says in the article: they were in a relationship for two years then they broke up. Afterwards J.C. underwent sex indoctrination courtesy of his university and the government and decided retroactively that the relationship hadn’t been consensual after all. That’s when he brought the charges.

      You should know all about scantily clad young boyfriends with the initials J.C., John, since you have been in a long term “relationship” with one yourself. But perhaps your “relationship” has messed you up so much that you are incapable of understanding normal human relationships anymore.

  4. Some people actually take the Campus Rape Crisis Everybody Panic! propaganda seriously.

    1. They sure as hell can’t get addicted to the crisis though, right?

      1. Yes? No? How the hell would I know? You don’t know how it feels til it happens to you.

        1. You would know because you know that addiction doesn’t exist. Duh and or hello.

  5. Second, John and J.C. frequently slept together in the same bed during their relationship. According to J.C., John would occasionally wake him up by kissing him, and sometimes persisted when J.C. wanted to go back to sleep.

    Yeah, sorry, but if you’re in a romantic relationship and voluntarily sharing a bed then kissing is permitted.

    That’s not sexual assault, that’s simple annoyance like farting under the covers or eating crackers in bed.

    Generations of gay guys would have killed to have been able to share a bed and get kissed awake.

    1. eating crackers in bed

      False. That’s an indication of an underlying major character flaw. Murder that person and have your friends help you bury him or her and then date someone who isn’t a monster.

  6. people who awaken their partners by kissing them are committing assault.

    That should strike one as stupid.

    1. That depends on the location of the kiss.

      1. My girlfriend’s best friend while my girlfriend is asleep… assault?

        1. /promote.

  7. Stop the world — I want to get off.

    1. You better have everybody’s permission before you do.

    2. Indeed. This country is doomed.

    3. More masturbation euphemisms? What have we become?

  8. This had to be the nastiest breakup in history. And one or both of them have to be completely nuts.

    1. Oh, their nuts, all right.

      1. Oh – there! Nuts!

        1. *O’er

  9. I have committed countless acts of sexual assault in my 40 years of marriage.

    I suppose I should turn myself into the closest university’s security office.

    1. That means my wife has raped me awake on more than one occasion!

      1. I don’t know how many cases of “Sexual violence” my ex-wife and I perpetrated on each other during our 17 years together, but according to Northwestern, it’s in the hundreds

  10. My closest university is also my alma mater and has been featured in one of these stories. I don’t suppose the fact that I was class of ’90 would be considered mitigating?

  11. I have to wonder if the people who decide these cases have ever been in a relationship with another human being, or if they even have friends. Disagreements in relationships are the norm, not the exception. That includes the sexual side of the relationship; sooner or later comes a time when one person wants it and the other just isn’t in the mood. Grownups work that stuff out. It’s just part of it.

    I’m glad this shit wasn’t going on when I was younger. If making a mistake in a relationship is a crime I’d still be breakin’ rocks in the hot sun.

    1. I think they are deciding them on very technical grounds and following very strict guidelines to do so. And that causes them to make crazy decisions. What you are saying is right. But if you apply the standard of sexual assault strictly enough, a husband slapping his wife on the ass and being rebuffed for sex is technically a “sexual assault” She didn’t consent to it and didn’t like it. And if you say “but they are married”, you are saying that being married is a license to assault each other. Basically, they decide things things so rigidly that common sense goes by the wayside.

  12. The gay menace is out of control!

  13. I had a girlfriend poison me and we worked it out amongst ourselves. Don’t these people have any interpersonal skills whatsoever?

    1. No. Duh.

      No, they don’t have any interpersonal skills. The fact that they have to retreat to a safe space and tremble when they see anything they don’t like tells you everything you need to know.

      And I want to hear about the poisoning. Was it deliberate poisoning or did she just serve you some dodgy egg salad?

      1. She put “a few” of her Prozac in a soda and served it to me. She said I seemed “sad.” I say a few because she wouldn’t tell me how many after I starting sweating, twitching and shivering and she fessed up. I didn’t go to the hospital because I was a dumb kid.

        1. Wow, definite psycho. Glad you’re still with us.

          Even if she wasn’t trying to kill you, “dosing” someone (administering mind-altering drugs without permission) is a total dick move. Definitely assault, and diversion of prescription drugs.

          1. She was always pretty nuts. After she broke up with me over basically nothing, she sent her Marine brother after me at a party. Only some fast talking from a friend of hers kept me from having the shit beat out of me. The ex apparently told him on whim that I beat her.

            I’ll never date another redhead again. I hate to be all collectivist about it, but I’m done with that vicious breed.

            1. I dated a redhead. Completely nuts. But the nympho kind of nuts, so it was worth it. After a few months she got bored and moved on, thankfully. I wasn’t happy about it at the time, but I was just a freshman in college. A little more life experience let me know that I dodged a bullet on that one.

              So yeah, I see your point.

          2. And giving someone a few prozac at once won’t even do anything to improve depression. Crazy on every level

        2. She put “a few” of her Prozac in a soda and served it to me. She said I seemed “sad.”

          She’s a keeper alright.

          1. She had good intentions!

          2. In my defense, she was very hot.

            1. And you probably seemed sad.

              1. All great artists are afflicted by melancholy.

            2. I have had my fair share of unstable hotties. My biggest error was the one I convinced to stop taking her meds.

      2. Knowing SF, it was probably the egg salad. Her eggs.

        1. Lets be honest, who hasn’t wanted to poison him? Poisoning him was probably the most rational thing this woman ever did.

    2. No. And if after six months she finally broke the deal and you turned her into the cops, hope Rywyn isn’t on the jury.

    3. The only “working it out” that is possible there is to break up instantly, and possibly swear off women entirely.

  14. So this seems to be another case of a university administration being used as a more than willing weapon against an ex.

    1. Look, that never happens. I know, because I’ve been to Jezebel and Huffpo. Anyone making that argument is a misogynist and should rightly be shunned.

  15. In fact, J.C.’s participation in Brandeis’ “sexual assault training” program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship.

    I think Rico is on to something. The universities are breeding hysteria with things like this. That also explains the “safe space” phenom. The university, as we know it today, cannot die soon enough.

    1. ^ Bingo. People don’t think they were assaulted until bureaucrats *intrude on their relationships and convince them they were assaulted.*

      Gee…that sure does sound like the kids who were manipulated into believing they were attacked by Satanic pedophile rings in the ’80s, doesn’t it?

      1. Yes they are taking people who are just annoyed or doing something in poor judgement and convincing them that they were raped. They are turning people into victims. It is really awful and cruel when you think about it. Thinking you have been raped has the same bad psychological effects of you actually being raped.

      2. And, of course, the self-fulfilling prophecy that “everyone will be raped in college.”

        1. If you aren’t raped, can you really even say you went to college?

          1. I guess only taking night classes at the community college is why I haven’t been raped yet…

            *holds out hope*

            1. Keep your chin up and your ass out, little trooper.

          2. I…I… [hangs head in shame]

          3. MATRICULATE AT STEVE SMITH UNIVERSITY! GUARANTEED RAPE OR YOUR TUITION BACK.

      3. It’s a great analogy. However, the kids who were manipulated in the ’80s were very young (preschool?). Today, the kids are college students, who less than a generation ago were considered adults and even now keep some trappings of their adult status, for example, they can vote.

        1. I would gladly trade the right of eighteen-year-olds to vote with the right to drink. I bet they would too.

          1. A few weeks ago my roommate’s friend invited her mom’s friend’s eighteen year old daughter over to the house for drinks. I was expressly forbidden even to flirt with her. That seemed infantilizing and unwarranted at the time, but it occurs to me now maybe it was for *my* protection.

            1. A few weeks ago my roommate’s friend invited her mom’s friend’s eighteen year old daughter

              Dang it, I thought you were queuing up for an anon-bot joke!

              1. Good lord, I read that as “anal-bot”. I gotta go do some work now.

                1. “Do some work” is not an abstract euphemism for masturbation. F for effort.

                2. All for the better, Rhywun, all for the better.

              2. Just wanted to be clear I wasn’t leching on some random teenage stranger. I was leching on a known teenage stranger.

                “I’m not a stranger danger! I’m a stranger danger RANGER!”

                1. “Just wanted to be clear I wasn’t leching on some random teenage stranger”

                  My opinion of you just got lower.

                  1. The worst part is that I almost certainly could have, until she opened her mouth and began gushing the most precocious torrent of sophomoric half-formed opinions. She had all of linguistic disjunction and none of the logical coherence of Agile.

            2. 18 years is of age, though.

              Or is she a SJW?

      4. People don’t think they were assaulted until bureaucrats *intrude on their relationships and convince them they were assaulted.*

        Yeah, i latched onto the same point below. People need to be *trained* to be this retarded. Its a way of seeing relationships that common sense would otherwise completely prevent.

    2. Seems more likely we are going to get “free” university for everyone. Ponder that for a moment.

    3. Wait until some of these kids join the field of human resources.

      1. That reminds me I’m late taking my online harassment training. I think I’ll wait til Monday.

    4. In fact, J.C.’s participation in Brandeis’ “sexual assault training” program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship.

      IOW, he was “reeducated.”

      1. They should stop calling them campuses and start calling them compounds.

    5. The universities are inducing mental illness.

  16. Only the Sexbots can save us now.

    1. That’ll last ’til about 50 years after AI bots have been around, then we will start legally questioning artificial life rights, then will follow the prohibition of sex with robots on the grounds of it being non-consensual.

      Idk if that makes any sense but the fact that it doesn’t make sense might just make it more plausible to happen, legally speaking.

      1. And reprograming a bot without its consent will be a crime.

      2. then we will start legally questioning artificial life rights

        The Butlerian Jihad began when AI bots started making abortion decisions for others.

  17. I’m sorry, but the fact that gay (and probably left-wing) college students are caught up in this left-wing feminist Anti-Sex League crap makes me laugh. “This must be a mistake! We fought in the Revolution! Tell Comrade Stalin!” Enjoy your totalitarian state, suckers.

    1. They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney gay college students would be getting expelled for the crime of kissing their partners. And damned if they were not right.

      1. I knew that white, hetro, patriarchs were to blame if we dug deep enough.

  18. Brandeis uses the “special investigator” model to handle sexual assault disputes: a single administrator reviews the charges, investigates them, and makes a decision.

    Well thank God at least some schools are still teaching Kafka. Most students have never even heard of The Trial and here Brandeis is teaching them by letting them live it.

    1. In fairness this is more of a half kafka. The defendant at least knows that he is charged with a crime and what crime that is. Give them a couple of years and they will go full Kafka and stop telling the defendant what they are even charged with.

  19. His former partner and accuser, J.C., did not file a complaint with the university until well after the incidents took place. In fact, J.C.’s participation in Brandeis’ “sexual assault training” program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship.

    its notable that it requires “Training” to undo one’s common-sense, and to convince people that retroactive redefinition of their sexual experiences is perfectly normal.

    The way college kids are being told to treat relationships is truly bizarre and un-natural. In my experience the entire point of a relationship is that it teaches you to accept that “both parties are responsible for it”. If it sours (and they often do), the experience of simply swallowing it and moving on is maturing. It teaches you that all people (including yourself) are flawed, and that living in harmony requires compromise.

    By contrast, the modern college campus seems to tell people that they aren’t responsible for their own relationships, that rather than reconcile or simply move on, encourages them to wield institutional authority against one another whenever feelings sour.

    Its a bizarre way to live. and there’s nowhere other than college campuses they’ll ever get this kind of 24/7 babying. What concerns me is when they enter the workforce and start demanding these sorts of social-policing powers from HR departments.

    1. I think that has something to do with the idea that relationships are supposed to make you happy. If they do not make you happy, then not only have they not worked out but you have been actively harmed. It is part of the entitled mentality of a lot of the population.

  20. J.C.’s alcoholism subsequent to the breakup was counted as evidence in his favor

    And J.C.’s alcoholism prior to the breakup was counted as evidence against him, right? RIGHT?!

    1. It shows that he knows how to absolve himself of responsibility.

  21. So, this princess kissed a frog, who magically turned into a whiny douche.

    Now, Brandeis is a private institution, but among other things, it seems the judge found there might be a breach of contract, that is, a contractual promise that students get to see their investigative reports.

    Basically, to get away with this sort of behavior, private universities will have to insert clauses in their student handbooks saying “we get to be arbitrary, so there!” which might drive potential students away.

  22. Never stick it in crazy

    1. That’s not enough, obviously, since J.C. only became crazy courtesy of they sexual assault training, long after they relationship

      1. J.C. seems highly manipulatable. Something John knew right away. That lack of self is crazy.

  23. In fact, J.C.’s participation in Brandeis’ “sexual assault training” program caused him to re-evaluate the relationship.

    If I’m ever sitting on a jury in a rape trial, and I hear that the accuser had to be convinced by some SJW that the events in question were rape before filing charges months after the fact, I’m going to vote for acquittal.

    -jcr

    1. You’ve just been blacklisted on the potential juror pool.

      1. As if someone would get a jury…

  24. RE: Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of ‘Serious Sexual Transgression’ for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend

    Just when you thought stupid prosecutions in the People’s Republic of America couldn’t get any more stupid…

  25. “In a world where affirmative consent is a prerequisite for each and every conceivable sexual act, people who awaken their partners by kissing them are committing assault.”

    The fact a wake up kiss is without consent is what it makes it special. YOU FUCKING SAD, FLAKY, PATHETIC RETARDED LOSERS.

  26. Oh, +1 promote on the alt-text.

  27. May not count for much, but I have a case in front of Saylor right now. A good guy, IMO.

  28. I just don’t understand how this continuous verbal consent thing is supposed to work. It doesn’t factor for a case where you consented when you started kissing, but then changed your mind, but kept kissing because you felt threatened. And so forth. It’s like the outright codification of a catch-22.

    Or in this case, barring the possibility that this was the first time he kissed him in the morning, and assuming there was no communication to the effect that such was taken to be some sort of violation, what are we looking for? A written contract with “kissing me in the morning is OK,” or something? If it’s always been OK in the past, and nothing has been said to indicate that it’s not anymore, what is a person to do? I mean, literally: wake the other person to ask if it’s okay again, today? What alternate reality is that?

    Because in fact, real, actual humans don’t want to be asked every two minutes if every little thing is OK. Quite the opposite, in fact, which anyone who’s not an insecure mess already knows. But then, maybe that’s a big part of the problem.

  29. ?After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
    this website,
    ???? http://www.BuzzMom90.com

  30. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.