Sex Crimes

After 'Inebriated' Hook Up, Student Gets Expelled Without Due Process

But a California court says he was was denied a fair hearing

|

Igor Mojzes | Dreamstime

For the second time this month, a California school has been rebuked in court for failing to provide due process to a student accused of sexual assault.

On April 11, 2015, two students at La Sierra University (LSU)—known as John Doe and Jane Roe in John's lawsuit against the school—had a sexual encounter following a party at which they both drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. It is "undisputed" that they were both intoxicated. According to the court,

Witnesses claim they saw John perform oral sex on Jane and attempt to insert his penis into her vagina when Jane started crying. John claims that, by her actions and words, Jane consented to oral sex and fingering her vagina, and that he stopped all sexual advances when Jane started to cry.

Jane did not remember the incident, and "learned what happened from the other party attendees" the following day. Five months later, in September 2015, Jane reported the incident to the university's Title IX office, and in May 2016, John was expelled.

The university found John responsible not only for sexually assaulting Jane on April 11, 2015, but also for creating a "hostile environment" for her in a shared biology lab between April and June of 2015. However, John received no notice of the "hostile environment" charge, and the investigators did not ask him about it during their interview with him. The court judged this to be profoundly unfair, holding that "without notice of these allegations against [John], he had no opportunity to defend himself prior to the Judicial Committee's decision [to expel him]."

Like many schools, LSU's disciplinary process in cases of sexual misconduct does not provide students with a hearing. Instead, university investigators meet with the parties and witnesses separately; review the evidence (with "broad discretion" to determine what evidence is "relevant or helpful"); and determine responsibility using the low "preponderance of the evidence" standard currently required by the federal government.

Based on this and other procedural shortcomings, the judge ruled that John had been "denied a fair opportunity to defend himself," and ordered LSU to set aside both the findings and the sanctions against him.

Even assuming that John's account of April 11, 2015 is entirely true, it is impossible not to feel troubled by what transpired that night. No matter what else did or did not happen, it is undisputed that a very drunk woman began crying in the middle of a sexual encounter—a position in which, I think it is safe to say, most of us would not wish to find ourselves. But this does not mean that the solution is to destroy, without so much as a hearing, the future prospects of accused students.

Particularly in cases that turn almost entirely on the credibility of witnesses, the Supreme Court has called cross-examination "the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." Far from being able to cross-examine the witnesses against him, however, John was not given the opportunity "to respond to or rebut the witness statements prior to the imposition of disciplinary action." He was only allowed to see the investigative report containing the witnesses' statements after the Judicial Committee found him responsible and ordered him immediately expelled. Regardless of John's guilt or innocence, this is a grievous injustice, one that the court was right to rectify.

But for every student like John who has received some measure of justice in a court of law, there are countless more—whether because of judges who are reluctant to intervene in university proceedings, or simply because of the often-prohibitive cost of bringing a lawsuit—whose educational and career prospects have come to a grinding halt based on little more than an investigator's hunch. It is heartening to see individual students find relief in the courts, but the campus due process crisis won't be over until all students can rely on their colleges to respect their rights.

Advertisement

NEXT: Border Patrol Raids a Non-Profit Providing Medical Aid to Immigrants in the Arizona Desert

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. known as John Doe and Jane Roe

    Man, those two crazy kids get around, don’t they.

  2. Witnesses claim they saw John perform oral sex on Jane and attempt to insert his penis into her vagina

    Jeez, get a room you two.

  3. So both students were pissed and baked? But only one was responsible for their own actions? How does that work?

    Okay, let me put on my evil reactionary sexist hat, and offer some advice to those of the female persuasion: You don’t want to have sex at a frat party? Don’t attend frat parties. Don’t get drunk at frat parties. Never lose control of yourself. Because sometimes not having sex means YOU will have to be the one who takes action.

    1. It is known that women are weak and don’t have agency. Only a man can be responsible for their actions. This is the new wave feminist position. I’m not sure I can say, in this particular story, who was at fault necessarily but that’s because the facts in the case were entirely one sided. It could be that he did abuse the girl if she was crying after oral sex, but then again it sound he stopped once she started crying. Either way this should be something a court decides if she feels that she was abused. Being expelled seems like a pretty light sentence if he’s a ‘sexual predator’ as they seem to claim.

      I do wonder why it took Ms. Roe 5 months to report it to the Kangaroo Court though. I’m guessing it’s because she didn’t like her reputation as a girl that would almost have sex in public, but who knows.

  4. Witnesses claim they saw John perform oral sex on Jane and attempt to insert his penis into her vagina when Jane started crying.

    attempt to insert his penis into her vagina

    his penis

    ^That was his problem right there. Guilty of having a penis.

  5. I once had a girl break up with me because I wouldn’t do anything with her. Of course I was too young to know what to do, but still…. times have changed.

  6. don’t blame the green.

  7. How have schools not been shut down for their blatant violations of basic civil rights of male students?

    Well, except that some beta cucks are praying that a co-ed will fuck them if they pretend to support feminism (and will then get embittered when those same women decide to fuck some “bad guy” instead).

    I swear, “nice guys” are killing Western Civ.

    1. How have schools not been shut down for their blatant violations of basic civil rights of male students?

      Title IX is the law.

      I swear, “nice guys” are killing Western Civ.

      True alphas aren’t so pessimistic, Beta Cuck.

    2. Club any chicks over the head and rape their corpses lately, alpha?

      1. That’s only for when the extreme negging fails to yield any results.

      2. Watch any alphas bang your chick while you get relegated to cleanup duty lately?

        Oh, we can both be stupidly hyperbolic. Look at that.

  8. Witnesses claim they saw John perform oral sex on Jane and attempt to insert his penis into her vagina when Jane started crying.

    If I parse that sentence correctly Jane was OK with getting some head from John in front of an audience (witnesses) but only started crying when John jumped it up a notch. Sounds like Jane could have reciprocated before John started pooning her. We need a special court for young lust disputes. i am putting in for Judge.

    1. Sounds like Jane could have reciprocated before John started pooning her.

      I agree.

      +1 for Judge widget – The man you can count on to be hard on pillow queens.

    2. If anything, she should have been expelled for being such a prick tease.

  9. Just for the record, La Sierra is an Adventist university.

    “On April 11, 2015, two students at La Sierra University (LSU)?known as John Doe and Jane Roe in John’s lawsuit against the school?had a sexual encounter following a party at which they both drank alcohol and smoked marijuana.”

    They should be free to kick people out for drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, or voluntarily having sex before marriage.

    . . . or getting tattoos, or drinking caffeine, or smoking cigarettes, or bringing the devil’s music on campus, or failing to attend church, or using foul language.

    1. Fair enough, except nobody else was kicked out except for John. Not the girl, not the other people attending the parties that were surely drinking and smoking the devil weed, not the host of the party playing the devil music on his stereo. Just John.

    2. They should be free to kick people out for drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, or voluntarily having sex before marriage.

      . . . or getting tattoos, or drinking caffeine, or smoking cigarettes, or bringing the devil’s music on campus, or failing to attend church, or using foul language.

      Oh Jesus, if we trot out the whole litany of libertarian purity, we’re never going to get anything done. Yes, they should be free to do so unless otherwise contracted. No, they shouldn’t be free to enforce disparately based on gender for equal violation(s) unless otherwise contracted. Yes, all ‘otherwise contracted’ conditionals may become null and void upon reception of some or any federal funds…

      For the record it sounds like she may’ve burst into tears for attending La Sierra.

    3. What’s your point? He was kicked out for sexual assault and creating a hostile environment.

  10. …it is undisputed that a very drunk woman began crying in the middle of a sexual encounter?a position in which, I think it is safe to say, most of us would not wish to find ourselves.

    I can’t get an erection unless I’m crying. But I can’t be drunk. Unless I’m also high.

    1. She said ‘most’.

    2. The part I don’t understand is the conclusion that tears during sex = RAPE. She could have been crying for many reasons – shame (people are gawking), missing her ex, realizing there will be no relationship after this drunken hookup, vaginismus, and some people just make weird faces/sounds.

      Especially if the whole thing wasn’t traumatic enough for her to remember, this just sounds like another Title IX witch hunt.

      1. She could have been crying for happiness because he really got her off with the oral.

  11. if the person is not convicted in a real court the school has no say.

    I find these tribunals in schools highly unconstitutional personally.

    1. I find these tribunals in schools highly unconstitutional personally.

      I think this depends on two things that aren’t ever really disclosed;
      1. Degree of federal funding.
      2. Cruelty/Unusual-ness of the punishment.

      If you’re a largely/purely private institution with an overactive HR department and you punish your students/customers by forcing them to take their tuition up the road to the next institution, you’re only shooting yourself in the crotch as far as I’m concerned.

      1. I dont see how schools have an jurisdiction to claim someone committed a crime. If he isn’t arrested and charged how is this school’s business? How is he guilty of anything if not proven guilt in a court of law?

        Can a school expel a kid? Yes…for claimed assault? I only see expulsion possible if he is proven guilty in court…otherwise no crime was committed.

        1. no conviction=no expulsion.

        2. They don’t. They claim a violation of the school’s honor code, which all students agree to upon entering, and then give them the boot.

        3. I don’t have a problem with it. If a company employee punches out a co-worker the company should have the right to terminate whether or not the case ever goes to court.

          1. Unless otherwise contracted, the company has the right to terminate with or without regard to any/all criminal acts.

            A professor I had for a CS100 class (effectively if not literally; Introduction to MS Office) , in a lecture of 500 students made attendance mandatory. Since I was mandated to attend, I moved to a balcony where I could otherwise occupy myself during lecture. The next day, he instituted assigned seating. So I sat in my assigned seat and studied my Organic Chemistry work. The next day, he mandated that the only text to be read during lecture was his text.

            I’m pretty sure enough of us could’ve gotten him canned if we’d raised enough of a fuss. However, if it came down to a ‘him or me’ situation, I’m almost certain the school would side with him and rightfully so.

    2. Jane is suing the school for non compliance with Title IX regulations. There is no criminal complaint . The feds have some jurisdiction over this because the college and the students take federal money.

      i think think these regulations also should apply, in full force, to anyone who has a government backed home loan, or lives on SDI or SS. That way widow Olson can sue the Graveyard Bound Nursing Home if Mr. Wilson fondles her petunia.

  12. So this is the equality feminists fight for? Schools should tell the accuser to call the cops. If there is a felony arrest the person is suspended. If there is a conviction they are expelled.

  13. Schools shouldn’t even be investigating the shit. It should be left strictly to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction. Colleges are pretty much in competent at everything.

  14. John Doe is lucky they didn’t go full Abelard on him.

  15. How about going back to the traditional way of handling such cases: expel them both?

  16. I don’t see anything in the story about witnesses testifying or otherwise directly communicating with staff, please correct if I missed it. Otherwise, isn’t this all hearsay?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.