Rape

Judge Sides with Brown U. Student Suspended for Sexual Assault, Calls Campus Activists 'Woefully Ignorant'

Female student accused a male student of assaulting her-a full year later, after Brown changed the definition of consent.

|

Brown
Public Domain

A Brown University student who was suspended for sexual misconduct will get another chance to prove his innocence before a university panel, according to a judge's decision.

The accusation against the male student, "John Doe," stemmed from a sexual encounter with "Ann Roe" on November 10, 2014. But Roe did not file a complaint against Doe until October 30, 2015—nearly a full year after the incident. Over the course of that year, Brown changed its sexual misconduct policy, and Doe was eventually found responsible under the new consent standard—a standard that hadn't yet existed on the night that he and Roe engaged in sexual activity.

On Wednesday, Doe prevailed in his lawsuit against Brown. Rhode Island District Court Judge William E. Smith agreed with Doe that the university had held him to an impossibly high standard: it found him guilty of sexual assault because he had "manipulated" Roe, even though the 2014 sexual misconduct policy did not explicitly outlaw manipulation.

"When combined with other errors set forth herein, it is clear that Doe's contract rights were violated," wrote Smith in his decision.

That doesn't mean that Doe didn't assault Roe—a subsequent university rape tribunal could still determine that he behaved improperly. But Brown is obligated to consider the sexual consent definitions it had in place in 2014, instead of the new, stricter definitions it codified after the alleged assault.

The judge reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the (presumably left-leaning) campus activists who sent him angry emails demanding that he rule against Doe:

These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this. Moreover, having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court. Hopefully, they will read this decision and be educated.

The encounter between Doe and Roe took place in an ostensibly public part of the student center that was secluded and hidden from view. Doe and Roe had earlier exchanged sexually charged text messages that suggest—to my mind, at least—both parties had every intention of sleeping together. According to Roe, they sat down to watch a movie together in the student center. Doe quickly escalated things. Roe initially objected, but eventually felt like she had no choice but to satisfy him with oral sex.

Doe disagreed vehemently with this version of events, according to the judge's decision. He said that Roe climbed on top of him, and repeatedly turned the lights off (they kept coming back on, I guess) of her own volition. She had every opportunity to leave, if she had wanted to, he said.

The incident was investigated by a single individual, lawyer Djuna Perkins, who prepared a report and then submitted it to a three-person panel. According to the investigation, one witness claimed that Roe had subsequently described the encounter as "really hot" and suggested that she had wished they had done more than just oral sex.

But in the many, many months between the encounter and the investigation, Brown had revised its sexual misconduct policy. While the initial policy did not properly define sexual assault as anything other than "forced sex," the new policy included "manipulation" as a basis for the invalidation of consent. Manipulation, of course, encompasses a wide range of behavior—not all of them violent or coercive in nature. (If a man promises to be faithful to his girlfriend and then they have sex, even though he has no intention of keeping that promise, it seems obvious that he has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.)

But, as Judge William's decision determined, the panel should have been considering the policy that existed at the time of the encounter rather than the new "manipulation" policy. Unfortunately, investigator Perkins confused the issue by making a copy of the new policy available for some of the people involved in reaching a guilty verdict.

The judge also suggested that Brown's sexual misconduct training might have given panelists bad advice on how to approach the case. One panelist refused to consider Roe's post-encounter statements as evidence that she might be lying, because Brown's training module had taught her to disregard inconsistencies in the complainant's stories—such inconsistencies could be evidence of a victim's trauma, according to the training.

This training apparently encouraged the panelist to neglect her duty to consider all the facts, according to the judge's decision.

"It appears what happened here was that a training presentation was given that resulted in at least one panelist completely disregarding an entire category of evidence," according to the decision.

Doe was eventually suspended from campus until Roe's graduation. Both parties appealed the decision: Doe wanted his name cleared, and Roe wanted outright expulsion.

The judge's decision does not render judgment on the incident in question: rather, it allows Doe to be re-tried by Brown under a more favorable—and just—set of circumstances.

Of course, we may never know exactly what happened between Doe and Roe. Personally, I am baffled that the panel could possible say his guilt is more likely than not, given the text messages and the witness testimony., which clearly suggest willingness of her part. In any case, I'm glad the judge recognized that campus sexual assault disputes should be resolved by fair-minded individuals on the basis of facts, rather than by ideologues in service of the believe all victims mantra.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Phantom Tickets

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. Look, if he didn’t want to be suspended for rape he shouldn’t have went to college.

  2. Penis = Guilty. This is known.
    Also, Male Privilege.

  3. Roe initially objected, but eventually felt like she had no choice but to satisfy him with oral sex.

    If you choose not to fellate, you still have made a choice.

    1. If the bitch don’t spit, you must acquit!

      1. It’s going down all the way down!

    2. I’m not sure I want my pecker in the mouth of a woman who doesn’t want it there…. They do have teeth you know.

      1. Absolutely correct, women do have Teeth.

      2. Contrary to what your favorite philosopher Aristotle wrote.

  4. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this.

    Someone is not paying attention to the current state of affairs in higher education.

    1. Would that the Supreme Court include such things in their opinions.

    2. The students thought they were filing Amicus Curae briefs, but never learned the proper procedure.

  5. Hopefully, they will read this decision and be educated.

    Is this judge speak for “Educate yourself”? If so, that’s the most delicious backhand across the screeching activists. 😀

    1. Is this judge speak for “Educate yourself”?

      That’s how I interpreted it. I bet those students salty ham tears are especially delicious.

  6. (If a man promises to be faithful to his girlfriend and then they have sex, even though he has no intention of keeping that promise, it seems obvious that he has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.)

    (Why does it have to be the man in this example?)

    1. (Why does it have to be the man in this example?)

      Because the universities never seem to persecute the women.

      1. Because women have no moral agency and can therefore never be responsible, and are also equal to and even superior to men in all ways.

        Doublethink is a real thing.

        1. To be fair, their lack of moral agency shows their superiority.

          1. If they have no moral agency, why are they not property?

    2. Because men are more likely to be accused of this?

      1. And this kind of reporting is making sure it stays that way by perpetuating the bigotry. Gender neutral pronouns, please.

    3. (Why does it have to be the man in this example?)

      Because manipulating people *for* sex is always bad but manipulating people *with* sex is just how the world works. So deal with it.

      It’s like a glass ceiling except on the floor and it doesn’t really apply to all men all the time. Also, men are frequently content to have it around even if it’s exceedingly fragile and they, occasionally, stumble over it. Really it’s more like a glass coffee table.

      1. Really it’s more like a glass coffee table.

        What you did there, I see it.

        +1 “Grab its fucking leg.”

  7. Rhode Island District Court Judge William E. Smith

    More fucking Mansplaining!

  8. It seems to me, a private school should be able to suspend or expel anyone, at any time, for any reason. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a “good reason.”

    Am I missing something?

    1. Breach of contract.

    2. The judge ruled that they were essentially in breach of contract by retroactively applying standards that didn’t exist at the time of the incident. So private has noting to do with it. Aside from the fact that they also take federal money in the form of student loans and educational grants.

      1. I not only answered first, I did so without RTFA.

        /pats self vigorously on the back, prepares a hot bubble bath reward.

  9. ‘because he had “manipulated” Roe’

    Now look, I’ve given a million ladies a million foot massages, and they all meant something. We act like they don’t, but they do, and that’s what’s so fucking cool about them. There’s a sensuous thing going on where you don’t talk about it, but you know it, she knows it….

  10. That’s funny, the article has Soave’s name on it, but it doesn’t have any to-be-sures, or any declaration that of course the SJWs in this case were well intentioned, etc.

    1. Once we caught on to the fact that Froot Sooshi was trolling us with that crap, I guess he decided to cut it out.

    2. Well there is this misuse of the language:
      “That doesn’t mean that Doe didn’t assault Roe?a subsequent university rape tribunal could still determine that he behaved improperly.”

  11. “He manipulated her into oral sex with an insincere promise not to finish in her mouth. Furthermore, his promise that he would see her in church next weekend also turned out to be manipulative. Sending her a check in the mail, then, was not only offensive but degrading, as he noted on the memo line that he deducted $50 from her gratuity for failing to swallow.”

    1. Wait, is that from the opinion, or is it a joke?

      1. Poe’s Law strikes again!

        I suspect he also promised to still respect her in the morning.

  12. “Brown’s training module had taught her to disregard inconsistencies in the complainant’s stories?such inconsistencies could be evidence of a victim’s trauma, according to the training.”

    Under this standard it is impossible for an the accused to be acquitted. A single accusation is all that is needed for a guilty finding. Wait until the emperor finds about this.

    1. The Empress is well aware of this standard. It applies to all peasants of the realm although, of course, not to members of the Royal Family.

    2. Under this standard it is impossible for an the accused to be acquitted.

      Feature, not bug. /progtard

    3. accusation + denial – all evidence = 50% preponderance every time.

  13. Judge Sides with Brown U. Student Suspended for Sexual Assault, Calls Campus Activists ‘Woefully Ignorant’

    Judge William E. Smith should be appointed to SCOTUS.

    Or not, who knows what his other views on things like the 2A are. He could be a statist fuckwad but just be right this one time, but either way, I like the cut of his jib.

  14. “If a man promises to be faithful to his girlfriend and then they have sex, even though he has no intention of keeping that promise, it seems obvious that he has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.”

    I’ve read activists claim this is, in fact, rape. It’s basically sexual fraud–if she wouldn’t have consented to sex without the deception, then she only consented on false pretenses. That is to say, she didn’t really consent, and if she didn’t really consent, then the word for sex without consent is rape.

    The example I read was about men misrepresenting their economic status. They were saying that if the female only consented to a sexual relationship because you misrepresented yourself as prosperous and financially independent, but you’re actually living in your mother’s basement and unemployed, then you’re guilty of rape if you obtained that consent under false pretenses.

    If a woman only consents to having sex with you because you presented yourself as unmarried, guess what? You’re a rapist!

    1. What if the woman stops putting out and gains weight after marriage? Same thing? Asking for a friend.

      1. There are a few problems with that. In no particular order:

        1) Did she promise to never gain weight?

        2) Did she promise to never stop “putting out”?

        3) If rape is sex without consent, then a woman not having sex isn’t rape.

        1. # 1 and 2) sure as far as you know or possibly prove or disprove.

          it’s a misrepresentation of body type instead of marital status.

          #3) raped my bank account. Uh I mean my friend’s.

          1. Marriage should be a contract–between a man and a woman or whomever can legally sign a contract.

            That’s the way it was in Rome. It was probably easier to do that when the contracts were effectively between two pater familii.

            The dowry was meant to cover the living costs of caring for the bride. If you divorced her, she’d get her dowry back minus her living expenses while you were married.

            Incorporate the contract signing into the ceremony.

            Let the bride’s lawyer stand next to the father when he gives the bride away.

            1. I declined that improperly, it’s actually “patres familias“.

        2. Isn’t it in the wedding vows? Love, honor, cherish, not get fat and put out.

      2. What if the woman stops putting out and gains weight after marriage? Same thing?

        Just go full (anti-)SJW and define a sexual rape as distinct from reproductive rape.

        So, if a woman claims not to be ovulating when she, in fact, is; you’ve only consented to the sexual activity and were manipulated into the reproductive one.

        1. Sorry. If my wife gets fat and stops putting out I can divorce, leave, sleep with other people, etc. and the State mostly won’t hunt me down. Unless I’ve been reproductively manipulated/raped.

    2. The example I read was about men misrepresenting their economic status. They were saying that if the female only consented to a sexual relationship because you misrepresented yourself as prosperous and financially independent, but you’re actually living in your mother’s basement and unemployed, then you’re guilty of rape if you obtained that consent under false pretenses.

      Proving once again what women really look for in a man.

      1. I’m okay with that.

        Being desired and respected for my hard work and prosperity is something I want.

        Having it taken for granted or disregarded pisses me off.

        That’s another thing that’s probably hard wired into us. When females of most any species look for a mate, they look for a mate who can best provide for their offspring.

        This is as it should be.

    3. There is no one ever who did not misrepresent themselves before sex. Men get dressed up and women wear makeup. Both are on their best behavior and don’t fart if they can help it. Everyone exaggerates their good qualities. Everyone pretends to be interested in the other’s story about blah blah blah. Part of growing up is learning to see through the BS. Women imply they are more interested in sex than they are and men pretend they love kids and plan to be a doctor. If all the premed guys actually became doctors, there would be a big surplus of docs. If you make “manipulation” into rape, absolutely everyone is guilty and should go to jail.

  15. “If a man promises to be faithful to his girlfriend and then they have sex, even though he has no intention of keeping that promise, it seems obvious that he has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.”

    I’ve read activists claim this is, in fact, rape. It’s basically sexual fraud–if she wouldn’t have consented to sex without the deception, then she only consented on false pretenses. That is to say, she didn’t really consent, and if she didn’t really consent, then the word for sex without consent is rape.

    The example I read was about men misrepresenting their economic status. They were saying that if the female only consented to a sexual relationship because you misrepresented yourself as prosperous and financially independent, but you’re actually living in your mother’s basement and unemployed, then you’re guilty of rape if you obtained that consent under false pretenses.

    If a woman only consents to having sex with you because you presented yourself as unmarried, guess what? You’re a rapist!

  16. I don’t suppose it needed to be said twice, but squirrels gotta be squirrelin’.

    I’m not usually given to saying who is and isn’t a libertarian, but I think one of our defining characteristics is the ability to differentiate between morality and legality. Just because you cheat on your spouse (which is immoral in breaking your word if nothing else), that doesn’t mean the criminal courts need to get involved, and even IF IF IF misrepresenting yourself to prospective sexual partners is immoral, that doesn’t mean it should be a crime.

    Birds, sharks, spiders, and elephants project themselves to potential sexual partners in the best possible light, as well. If there’s any potentially unethical behavior that shouldn’t be criminalized, maybe it’s the universal stuff that’s intrinsic to the biological imperative. Meanwhile, the civil courts are still available for civil fraud complaints. If a guy defrauds you into giving him an orgasm, maybe you can convince seven out of twelve jurors by a preponderance of the evidence to make him give it back.

    1. “Sure, I usually bite off the heads of my mates and then lay my eggs in their carcass, but you are different! How could I do that to you after we’ve prayed together?”

      1. A great philosopher once wrote something to the effect of, “Women seem wicked when you’re alone”.

        Women are what they are, and there are certain . . . tendencies that pronounce themselves, yeah even interspecies. I’ve never had one that actually tried to bite my head off, but sometimes, I think that’s what they wanted to do.

  17. He gave them the old “educate yourself”?!?! That’s great. Did he throw in an “I can’t even” to drive the point home?

  18. “Manipulation” is just insanely vague. Wouldn’t almost all flirting and wooing count as some kind of manipulation.

    Unless strangers are just randomly fucking, there is some kind of manipulation going on in any sexual relationship.

    1. Insanely vague indeed (No nudity but probably NSFW)

      I can only assume that the oxymoronic spiral would cause them to purge all the Marxist propaganda from their curricula and forego licensing and sponsorship lest someone be unduly or unwittingly manipulated.

    2. Unless strangers are just randomly fucking, there is some kind of manipulation going on in any sexual relationship.

      Perhaps Tinder hookups really are the most honest form of “dating” out there.

    3. I wonder if it’s an unenforceable contract precisely because it’s so vague. I can’t think of any interaction, as a prelude to sex, that couldn’t be characterized as manipulation somehow. You’re defacto guilty of it the moment you engage in anything but glory hole sex.

  19. According to the investigation, one witness claimed that Roe had subsequently described the encounter as “really hot” and suggested that she had wished they had done more than just oral sex.

    Truly the words of a traumatized victim. /sarc

    Here’s my theory: the two dated for a while after the BJ incident, then at some point in the year after the BJ and the complaint, Doe broke up with her. When the new policy came out, she saw her opportunity to get even and ruin his life for daring to break up with her.

    The lesson Doe should take from this: never stick it in crazy, and don’t stick it in any woman while still in college. Just live by yourself and jerk off until after graduation, when if you do make the mistake of sticking it in crazy, at least you’ll have due process and the prosecution will have to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard if she accuses you of rape for wanting to break up. At least for now.

    1. The lesson Doe should take from this: never stick it in crazy, and don’t stick it in any woman while still in college.

      At the very least, remember the crazy/hot matrix and “Go ugly early”.

      1. Worst. Link. Ever.

        -Comic Book Reasonoid

        1. It wouldn’t open the first time I tried but it did the second.

          The internet is bullshit.

  20. (If a man promises to be faithful to his girlfriend and then they have sex, even though he has no intention of keeping that promise, it seems obvious that he has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.)

    So if a woman promises to have very perky 34c boobs and they have sex, even though he finds out the next day she was wearing a heavily padded push-up bra and actually has droopy 34a boobs, it seems obvious that she has been manipulative, but not necessarily abusive.

    Right? RIGHT?!?!

    1. I think we need to prioritize. Let’s get Ovulation Licensing in place before we start work on the Federal Breast Registry, okay?

  21. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this.

    Good one, Your Honor.

  22. These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this.

    lol Oh, judge. Brown has been dragging down the Ivy league’s reputation for ~40 years. You shouldn’t take them so seriously.

  23. Robby Soave: The Art and Science of Trolling the Shit Out Of Fucking Everybody. Coming this fall.

  24. Well, rape is rape. No means, No!! No one should be raped!!!!

    Unfortunately, I see a trend to supporting stupendously drunken women regretting their stupidity, and shrieking Rape on college campuses! But I am an old guy and out of touch.

    I certainly don’t support them. Neither should others. It is a bit like trying to excuse vehicular homicide by explaining
    how drunk you were at the time. It just doesn’t cut it. As far as I can tell, the politically-correct, safe space, micro-aggression crowd is running this show. They should be shut down.

  25. It’s a miracle a male has escaped the wrath of a female-he shudda paid for the drinks.

  26. The rape culture is what it is. No one should be raped. No means NO!

    As I read these unending tales of trauma, however, I’m worried. Very little of it rings true. I realize I am an old man and out of touch.

    But it seems as though young women repeatedly think it is OK to test their alcohol tolerance at fraternity parties. That wasn’t even a good idea back in my day.

    It also seems that lefties with too much time on their hands feel the need to get hysterical if you look cross-eyed at them. The moral outrage seems to have become a drug to some students and administrative staff.

    There is a criminal justice system for dealing with rape and other forms of sexual assault. It isn’t a very good system, but it is there. University kangaroo courts laced with moral indignation and ignorance of fact are terrible venues for giving vent to “outrage”.

    In the case above, we see administrators acting as though they thought ex-post-facto laws were ok. They aren’t.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.