Due Process

Carleton College Suspended a Student for Drunken Sex. He Appealed. Then They Expelled Him.

His lawsuit claims the campus's procedures made a mockery of due process.

|

Should continuing to assert your innocence be seen as a sign of guilt? After issuing a three-semester suspension to football player "John Doe" for sexual assault, Carleton College in Minnesota gave him the option of appealing the verdict. He did so, to no avail.

Then the dean of students wrote to Doe that "the fact you continue to assert that it was okay to engage in sexual activity with a person in [Jane Doe's] condition is deeply troubling." John's suspension was upgraded to a permanent expulsion.

That's just one of many troubling claims made in Doe's lawsuit against Carleton College, which was filed in U.S. District Court earlier this month. John alleges that investigators violated his due process rights, ignored evidence that undercut his accuser's claims, and evinced bias against him at all stages of the process.

The lawsuit stems from the events of April 28, 2017, when John, Jane, and many other students received invitations to join a secret society. They were told to meet at a specific place on campus at 2:00 a.m., where the members of the society instructed them to consume copious amounts of alcohol and then cover the president's house in toilet paper. On the way to the house, the lawsuit claims, Jane stopped John, whom she had just met, and began kissing him and then touching him below the belt. According to John's lawsuit, he eventually grew uncomfortable with the public nature of their contact, and suggested they go back to his dorm.

What followed was a sloppy drunken hookup—John vomited both before and after they had sex, and Jane vomited after. But in John's telling, Jane repeatedly, verbally consented to it—indeed, the whole thing had been her idea. If Jane was an incapacitated victim, then so was John.

By 6:00 a.m., John had to go to football practice. He told Jane she could sleep in his dorm room, and wear any of his clothes. A few minutes after he left, Jane stumbled out of the dorm room wearing nothing but John's T-shirt and her underwear. She encountered a random male student, and asked to sleep in his bed. Eventually, the authorities were called out of concern for Jane's well-being, according to John's lawsuit.

Campus security escorted Jane back to her dorm but decided to call her an ambulance. According to the lawsuit, security personnel "found her alert and oriented" but unable to correctly answer certain questions. She claimed to be a member of a secret society, "like a frat," which confused the officers, since Carleton doesn't have any fraternities. Jane vomited on the way to the hospital and "seemed remorseful."

As Jane sobered up, she became concerned that she had been raped, according to the lawsuit. Later that day, after receiving assurances that she would not face sanctions for reckless underage drinking, she filed a sexual misconduct complaint against John.

County prosecutors also filed criminal charges against John, but these were eventually dropped. The Carleton proceedings were adjudicated under the auspices of Title IX, the gender equality statute that looms large in campus sexual misconduct trials thanks to aggressive guidance from the Obama-era Education Department. John's lawsuit argues that he had no shot at a fair hearing, since the entire matter was handled by just two administrators: one who produced a report based on the evidence she had gathered, and another who passed judgment.

John was found responsible, and he was given five days to appeal the verdict to the Community Board on Sexual Misconduct. He did so. Prior to the hearing, he was finally allowed to review the administration's report on the dispute, which contained the Title IX officer's characterization of interviews with witnesses but not the transcripts of the actual interviews. John was also concerned that key text messages, which portrayed him in a favorable light, were not included in the report.

At the actual hearing, John was told that he could not introduce questions to be asked of Jane, who was questioned separately. He was also told that "witnesses would not be necessary at the hearing, as he would not be allowed to present any." Unsurprisingly, the committee confirmed that he was responsible for sexual misconduct. After it suspended him, John appealed the decision—as did Jane, who considered it too lenient.

In his appeal, John argued that the committee had not had access to all relevant evidence when making its decision and that "the sanction is inconsistent with the seriousness of the offense based upon the facts alleged." This apparently irked Dean of Students Carolyn Livingston, who denied John's appeal. She went so far as to agree with Jane that the punishment was too lenient in light of the fact that John had persisted in asserting his innocence. As a result, John was expelled.

The lawsuit demands that Carleton College pay John $75,000 in damages stemming from mental anguish, deprivation of due process and education opportunities, and loss of future career prospects. It will be interesting to watch the college's response to these charges.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbats: August/September 2019

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. Moral of the story: Sex can wait.

    1. Alternate moral: Stick with the townies.

      1. Gosh. Even that’s too risky. Better to leave town altogether, perhaps even the state, before even considering anything remotely flirtatious, let alone anything sexual. Poor college kids these days just don’t know what they’re in for until it’s too late.

      2. Alternate alternate moral: Will Smith truly was the Fresh Prince. Carleton was just too uptight to appreciate his princely freshness.

        1. VD moral: always use the name Ron Mexico

          1. Drunken sex in college can get you suspended? I thought it was part or the curriculum.

    2. I think the college is right, they found John “responsible”, which of course means they found Jane “irresponsible”. In fact I’m seeing a pattern here, there seems to be an overwhelming consensus in America’s universities and colleges that men are responsible and women are irresponsible.

      I really don’t know what the answer is, maybe requiring the girls to live in women only dorms with strict curfews and chaperones, and strict rules against male visitors in the girls rooms.

      1. One of the most insidious aspects of title ix implementation is that campuses have been instructed not to pursue underage drinking charges against women who claim to have been sexually assaulted.
        So, even if it’s consentual, even if you’re in a relationship, expect anyone caught underage drinking to plead rape.

      2. John should have said she is a translesbian, demanded that Jane be arrested by authorities and expelled from Carleton.

        John has 3 victim points – female, trans, and lesbian – while Jane only has 1.

        John wins!

    3. Other moral of the story:

      1. NEVER take them back to your place.
      2. NEVER tell them your real name.
      3. NEVER tell them what town you live in.
      4. If military, NEVER tell them what unit you’re assigned to.

      Geez, I get that he’s a college kid, but apparently he’s a moron too.

      1. Maybe, just maybe, he kind of liked her?

        What the hell ever happened to giving him your phone number?

  2. Too bad “John” plays football and not basketball, as this suit should be a slam-dunk.

    1. Unless they move the goal posts.

      1. You hit that one out of the park.

        1. He certainly got further than first base.

          1. Something something shuttlecock.

            1. -1, bad…something.

          2. He put it in the 5 hole.

            1. Juuussssst a bit outside….

    2. I’m going to punt on this one.

  3. “The lawsuit demands that Carleton College pay John $75,000 in damages”

    Robby, that is not what the complaint means or says. It says not less than $75,000. This is to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal court if the federal claims get dismissed at some point. That is not the amount of money he is seeking in noneconmic damages.

    1. I was gonna say, $75 large ain’t gonna cover his legal bill. Being labeled a rapist by your college has got to cause more than $75k worth of direct economic harm.

      1. Do you hate all our daughters?

        1. No, just the craven sluts.

    2. Uhh, whoops. You are absolutely right as to what his compliant says, and as such he’s lost right out the gate. Though he pleads a basis for jurisdiction as “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” he then messes it up by asking for only “not less than $75,000.00.”
      Diversity jurisdiction requires claiming damages of more than $75,000.00. Always add that extra penny at the end. Sure, expunging his record might be worth at least a penny, but he didn’t so assert.

      1. Sorry, forgot to mention, he’s still got a few days to amend, so maybe this will be fixed.

      2. Nah, diversity jurisdiction just requires that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the complaint alleges that it does. The prayer for relief doesn’t have to give a number at all, could just say “damages to make plaintiff whole.”

  4. I’m not familiar with the college rules, but they both seemed pretty drunk. If neither of them was sober enough to consent to sex, did they rape each other?

    1. Apparently only women make irrational decisions when drunk

      1. The one common denominator in most of these stories is that though both are drunk, it’s the guy who initiates the sex.

        “he eventually grew uncomfortable with the public nature of their contact, and suggested they go back to his dorm” -how nice of him.

        Translation, he knew he had a drunk live one and wanted to press his advantage to get laid. Anyone who’s ever been to a frat party has seen guys swarming around an obviously drunk girl hoping they’ll be the one to get some.

        1. Actually, quite often, as in Thai case it is the woman who initiates it and then regrets it the next day. But she is always the victim.

          1. I don’t know about the Thai case, but 8 times out of ten, I’d say, it’s a case like this one, or the teenage boy from NJ who filmed his encounter, but the judge decided he was from a good family a few weeks ago.

            1. I don’t know what the %s are. But if both parties are inebriated then either both are guilty of sex without consent or neither are.

              Doesn’t really matter whose idea it was. Both have agency.

              BTW, universities agree that it doesn’t matter whose idea it was. If it was the woman’s idea, the man is still guilty. If it was the man’s idea then the man is guilty. If both were enthused then the man is guilty.

            2. Oh haha. Yes my autocorrect changed a word, so droll.

        2. “On the way to the house, the lawsuit claims, Jane stopped John, whom she had just met, and began kissing him and then touching him below the belt.”

          Leaving this out of your description of who initiated things seems more than a little disingenuous.

          1. Initiating fooling around, and taking it to your bedroom for sex are two different thing. Unless you believe fooling around always leads to sex. Notice she didn’t bring him to her room.

            The fact that she was doing it in public to someone she didn’t know should be a tip off. He knew she was drunk, and wanted to get laid.

            Somehow even though both people are drunk, it’s the guy who usually takes it to sex.

            1. So Trump can grab some p*ssy as long as he’s drunk and in public?

              Got it.

              1. As long as it’s consensual 😉

                1. Well, lucky him then. As I understand it, it was.

            2. OK, you’re just a lying sack of shit troll.

              The proper, sensible response to jph12’s comment would be that he’s quoting the plaintiff’s claims as to what happened and that we don’t really know.

              But, because you’re a lying sack of shit troll, you’ve got to invent a version of events that conform to your narrative and may not exist anywhere and cram it down the throats of anyone who glances in your direction.

            3. “Initiating fooling around, and taking it to your bedroom for sex are two different thing.”

              So first she sexually assaulted him, then he raped her because asking her back to his room somehow breaks the causal connection. What a brilliant argument.

              ” Notice she didn’t bring him to her room.”

              Notice how that is completely irrelevant.

              “The fact that she was doing it in public to someone she didn’t know should be a tip off.”

              He was also doing it in public to someone he didn’t know.

              “He knew she was drunk, and wanted to get laid.”

              She knew he was drunk, and wanted to get laid is also perfectly consistent with everything we know. There’s literally nothing in this story that supports your position (granted it’s largely his version of events). Maybe he was just uncomfortable fooling around in public and wanted to fool around back in his room. Maybe when they got there, she decided to take things further.

              “Somehow even though both people are drunk, it’s the guy who usually takes it to sex.”

              Your view is nothing more than a combination of Victorian prudishness and a disrespect for the agency of women.

              1. As a guy who went to CC for a year in the mid 70’s, the only way a good share of the women there will ever get laid is to get the guy drunk. It’s far worse than you can imagine, I wouldn’t send my son within 100 miles of that place.

            4. Somehow even though both people are drunk, its the girl who usually consents to sex.

              Can’t have it both ways, if a drunk guy is responsible for his actions, a drunk girl is responsible for hers

              1. Vaginal privilege says otherwise.

                My body
                My choice
                Your responsibility

            5. I’m guessing you never got laid in college, eh skippy. What’s with the new batch of moron trolls, did Think Regress go on a hiring spree?

        3. Anyone who’s ever been to a frat party has seen guys swarming around an obviously drunk girl hoping they’ll be the one to get some.

          I spent more time with my (now) wife and her friends. I attended a few frat parties and never saw something I would describe like this (does two constitute a swarm?). Of course, I wouldn’t say it never happens but to assert that ‘anyone who’s ever been to a frat party’ makes it seem a bit like you’ve never really been to any frat parties.

          I did hear more than one conversation among girls about getting drunk and going to a frat party to expand their choice of guys.

          1. Guess you went to those lame engineering frat parties then.

            1. Guess you went to those lame engineering frat parties then.

              Or all the frat parties I attended had more gender parity among their drunks.

              It’s not my fault you chose to perpetuate rape culture by repeatedly showing up at drunken sausagefests in order to watch guys swarm around a drunk girl.

            2. Sounds like you’re projecting.

            3. About being a creep, not an engineer.

        4. Part of the reason I despised frats and thought women were stupid in my college days (1975 to 1979).

        5. Well, the “public nature of their contact” was her grabbing his crotch.

      2. No, women are always victims, whether drunk or sober, and regardless of their own decision and intent at the time. All that matters is what they might feel at any future time. Or what someone else might feel for them.

        Quite a wonderful status, really. Authority figures can over-rule an autonomous person and recast them as a victim.

        1. IOW – no agency.

          Quite sexist one would think.

    2. That has been at issue for quite some time. At least since the early 80’s.

      The answer is: “Asking that question is misogynistic.”

    3. Near as I can tell, the rule is: men and women are totally equal, except that women are actually better than men in every way, but only men will be held responsible for their actions. Because patriarchy.

      1. Or because (when convenient) women are weaker in every essential way, and need protected status.

    4. Just out of curiosity, for the LGBT community. If it was a lesbian hookup who is at fault? Or a gay male hookup? Or a trans man? Or a trans woman? Because it is pretty straight forward if it heterosexual hookup it is always the male who is at fault (straight forward in the mind of these administrators anyhow).

      1. Just out of curiosity, for the LGBT community. If it was a lesbian hookup who is at fault? Or a gay male hookup? Or a trans man?

        Cis males, duh. Even I know the answer to that one.

        1. Shit. Cis-het males. Can I get partial credit?

          1. Too late. The answer sheets have been graded.

      2. Always say you’re a trans lesbian.

        1. I’m a trans former.

          A Triad transformer.

    5. I would file a counterclaim. It may get laughed at, but then that would be evidence of discrimination and the feds would likely jump in.

      1. He should claim she violated him by shoving something into his cornhole while he was unable to give informed consent. She is the one who should be expelled, not him!

      2. You’d be accused of retaliation.

        1. So, beat her to the punch. Any time a college boy wakes up in the morning after drunken sex, he should go immediately to the Title IX officer and file a rape complaint.

  5. Kicked out of school, you think that’s bad?

    California just kicked Donald Trump out of the Republican party!

    1. Really? That’s funny! Do California Republicans still think they are relevant?

      Semi-related — my local assemblyman won promotion to Congress, I think, and there’s a special election for his replacement. 5 candidates.

      One is a Democrat — scratch that, they already have a super majority, I believe.

      One has the same last name as the promoted ex-incumbent — fuck that noise!

      One is 24 years old, brags of his government experience and tribal affiliation — fuck that special pleading.

      One brags of supporting America, has tons of US flags in his campaign photos, and makes sure to drag in his wife and kid. Fuck a false patriot.

      The last says he supports the Constitution, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, … and lists his occupation as retired soldier, without any flag waving photos that I saw. So he obviously hasn’t got a chance, and I voted for him.

      1. The legislature and the governor just signed a bill saying that Donald Trump’s name can’t appear on the ballot.

        Sorry. You guys have to nominate someone else.

        1. Yeah, that’s going to last a hot minute in federal court.

          Not that it matters, the ballot box has been stuffed for the Democrat already.

        2. Holy shit, that’s nuts.

          “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement.

          I’m pretty sure they have a legal duty to run free and open elections. And the minimal standards are age and citizenship status at birth.

          1. I was assured it was racist when some states debated laws to require candidates to show their birth certificate (citizenship is actually required) but it’s totes okay to demand private information like tax returns despite no constitutional authority to do so?

            1. In an aside did you see Steve Cortes response to charges that tweeting that Baltimore is rat infested is racist?

            2. Also, it was labeled unconstitutional by “legal” scholars when Arizona passed it in 2011 (before public pressure led Brewster to veto it).

          2. ““These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement”

            In which case, Newsom should resign from office.

        3. To be fair, the constitution doesn’t really specify how states should choose their electors, so it’s possible the California could legally block trump from the ballot.

          That said, i believe they are only blocking him from the primary ballot so it doesn’t really matter anyway.

          1. But it also applies to all offices. So it applies to the Governor’s race. It also has quite a few other rather 1984ish provisions.

          2. You have to file two copies, one of which must be completely unredacted. But they swear only the unredacted version will be available for the public.

          3. The Supreme Court shot down state-set term limits for federal elected positions. They will shoot this down too.

        4. Primary ballot only. Do you think that there’s any chance Trump won’t get the 2020 GOP nomination?

          If California tried that crap on the general ballot, it would get sued six ways from Sunday and it would lose heinously.

          1. And even if it did win, it would change Trump’s electoral college vote total by roughly 0.

            1. it would change Trump’s electoral college vote total by roughly 0.

              I dunno. It leans into his narrative about coastal elites pretty hard.

              1. That’s true. It won’t hurt his vote total, but it might help.

          2. Do you think that there’s any chance Trump won’t get the 2020 GOP nomination?

            I think there’s a good chance that Trump will be eliminated somehow by the party elite before he gets the nomination, either by assassination or by some subtler means.

    2. For those curious, google tells the details. The law bans candidates who do not release their tax forms.

      It’s blatant interference with a federal election. Some states, I think, tried term limits on federal senators and representatives, and the Supreme Court shot it down as interference not allowed by the Constitution, but state term limits are hunky dory.

      This won’t last. It’s pure virtue signalling.

      1. I don’t know, MD says I can’t register as a libertarian because the party didn’t get enough votes in the mid terms. And libertarian candidates won’t get ballot auto ballot access for the 2020 without jumping through hoops again.

      2. Does the bill specify which years he must release? Trump was born in 1946, so he could release his tax returns from ’47-’51.

        1. The past 5 years.

      3. Remember when Democrats were outraged at the suggestion that presidential candidates should actually have to document that they fulfilled the *constitutionally mandated* requirements to be President?

      1. Bob, Phil, Frank, Joe, and David.

    3. Trump’s not really a Republican anyway, he could give a shit about the party itself, he just want’s their votes.

  6. the dean of students wrote to Doe that “the fact you continue to assert that it was okay to engage in sexual activity with a person in [Jane Doe’s] condition is deeply troubling.” John’s suspension was upgraded to a permanent expulsion.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    1. Yes, well we know from the Russia hoax and Kavanaugh hearings that maintaining your innocence is a sure sign you’re guilty.

    2. Fuck the dean’s kafkatrapping.

      1. Fuck the dean in every possible way, physically, emotionally, financially, and then again physically.

  7. Should continuing to assert your innocence be seen as a sign of guilt?

    I thought this article was gonna be about Title IX. Instead, it’s another rant to impeach Trump and get Kavanaugh tossed from the bench.

    1. Heh! Nice connection.

      And bonus funny because they actually did try to play that card.

    2. I really hope this is a joke.

    3. Oops, just messaged the same thing, before I read your post.

  8. John vomited both before and after they had sex, and Jane vomited after.

    Typical horny college male to vomit first. End the drunken hookup vomit gap!

  9. Another reason why the college administration and their rules are sexist. Two people are drunk. They have sex. Guess who is considered incapable of agency and making decisions in this scenario?

    I was recently listening to a podcast between Bettina Arndt and a female feminist professor on the state of feminism. The professor laughed about how in the 70s, they laughed (and fought against) the notion that women were too emotional and sensitive to successfully navigate the rigors of professional public and working life. Now that we’ve been in the experiment for over 30 years, she wondered if the men were right.

    1. Seems to me that women are “navigating” professional public and working life just fine. Men, not so much.

      1. Way to explain it to her Ray.

        1. I thought she was a dude named Paul.

          1. D.R.(P.) is quoting an unnamed ‘female feminist professor’.

      2. Men do need to learn that having sex with someone who’s utterly devoid of agency has consequences.

        1. What about women?

          1. It has no consequences for women. That’s the point here. I predict John Doe will lose this lawsuit.

  10. She claimed to be a member of a secret society, “like a frat,” which confused the officers, since Carleton doesn’t have any fraternities.

    Carleton doesn’t have a frat… Women generally join sororities… Fraternities and Sororities aren’t secret societies… And drunk people claiming to be openly claiming to be members of secret societies are generally crazy and/or confusing intrinsically.

    1. Women generally join sororities…

      Wow, genderist much?

      1. All sororities are fraternities, but not all fraternities are sororities.

      2. Wow, genderist much?

        I’m not privy to the gender breakdown of all fraternities, sororities, and secret societies. I’m just going by the social constructs that I can observe.

  11. “Should continuing to assert your innocence be seen as a sign of guilt?”

    It does in Prog and Media World. Did you pay attention to the Mueller witch fishing expedition or the Kavanaugh hearings. It’s far from an isolated incident or special case

    This how the Woke want to run the country.

    1. Well, of course. It’s much easier to find “guilty” people if you can kafkatrap them.

    2. How dare the witch float!

    3. Courts do much the same at sentencing.

      You show “remorse” when you validate the ruling of the court by confessing and apologizing.

      If you still protest that you’re innocent, you’re “showing no remorse”, and get a longer sentence.

  12. Sounds like they are both victims of hazing and it is the college that is responsible for the sexual assault. Of both parties.

  13. Tie his hands, toss him in the lake. If he drowns, he’s not guilty.

    1. If he weighs less than a duck…

        1. Build a bridge out of him!

  14. John vomited both before and after they had sex, and Jane vomited after.

    Wasn’t there a Jerry Springer episode about this?

  15. $75k is likely nothing next to the amount of federal aid the college gets. Colleges will continue this until they regularly get sued for larger amounts of money. Hopefully, a group will sue the schools for Title IX violation since they clearly treat males differently from females in these suits.

    1. But the law endorses treating men and women differently.

    2. He’s not asking for just $75k. He’s asking for a minimum of that. He has to include that minimum in the lawsuit in order to allege federal jurisdiction. It’s a technical legal maneuver. The actual amount of damages won’t get listed out until much later in the process of the lawsuit.

  16. If you’re concerned that you were raped, but not sure that you were, are you actually traumatized?

    1. Well, once you’ve been properly counselled, then, yeah… definitely.

    2. Questioning the extent of the victim’s trauma is further raping the victim.

  17. “John Doe, just because you were drunk it does not alleviate you of responsibility for your actions.”

    “Jane Roe, because you were drunk, you are not responsible for your actions.”

    How could it be any clearer?

  18. Jane…”seemed remorseful.”

    There it is.

    1. I disagree. It’s right here:

      after receiving assurances that she would not face sanctions for reckless underage drinking

      It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if this person made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

      1. I read that the same way. They hectored her until she finally collapsed and agreed to their version.

        And of course with the way that memory works, I’m sure she remembers something completely different that her original recollection.

      2. This is a part of title ix implemention at most colleges from Obama era dear colleague letters. Those claiming sexual assault shall face no consequences for underage drinking.

  19. “Carleton College Suspended a Student for Drunken Sex. He Appealed. Then They Expelled Him.”

    Due process is welcomed on American colleges campuses as much as free speech.

  20. Obviously we can’t say what actually happened her.

    But his version brings to mind the incident where the guy who supposedly assaulted the woman student was able to produce a video that showed her rather aggressively performing sex acts on him in front of the ATM. I’m not sure on the details, but I think the initial response was that the video was not exculpatory, despite conclusively demonstrating that her version didn’t hold water and that she most definitively did display “enthusiastic consent”.

    1. Consent has to be made *literally and enthusiastically* at every moment, both while sex occurs and for every moment thereafter.

      Since consent can be withdrawn at any time, even years later, no amount of observed consent can ever establish that consent existed.

      Consent is unfalsifiable *by design*.

      1. Oops.

        Accusations of rape are unfalsifiable, by design.

  21. So, less risky (or at least more due process) to kill a woman on campus than to indulge in a drunken hookup.

    Got it.

    1. No. The murder charge probably gets you tossed off campus guilty or not, probably even without a hearing.

      However, both/all participants filing false rape complaints *immediately* after every sexual interaction no matter how low key or consensual actually makes a lot of sense from a lot of different angles though. Still probably not adequate on an individual defense level or in every case but, collectively, sends the appropriate message about who should take responsibility for consent and how.

  22. So… a drunk person gets into a car… they are responsible for driving under the influence. A drunk person fucks… they aren’t responsible for their actions… bullshit

    1. They are if they’re men.

  23. It’s interesting how the application of government rules like “due process” and “free speech” in Reason varies according to the intended outcome of the argument. Motivated reasoning FTW

  24. I can’t wait until it’s two drunk gay guys and they both get expelled for “raping” each other.

    If it’s two gay women, then I guess they’ll expel whoever supplied the alcohol.

    1. My body
      My choice
      Your responsibility

    2. Gay male sex would hardly exist without alcohol. Approximately 100% of gay boys lose their virginity while intoxicated.

      1. So getting corn holed counts as loss of virginity? I never thought of it that way; never thought of it all, actually.

        1. never thought of it all, actually.

          Then you’re no doubt an actual heterosexual, unlike Misek.

          But, yeah, in today’s vernacular, having sex for the first time is losing your virginity. Whether you’re on the top or the bottom is irrelevant.

  25. Applying Robby’s principles from his previous article:

    Only a tiny proportion of Americans approve of Title IX inquisitions. How can they exist?

  26. Affirmative action in court.

    Equality has nothing to do with it.

    It’s all about “getting even” for a false narrative of perceived past wrongs. It’s a successful model.

    When will men stand up together as a group to fight against these fascist feminist laws? Those skanky pussies aren’t worth our self respect.

    1. Are you coming out?

      1. Can’t anyone get a coffee in the morning before some faggot asks about sex.

        Damn you’re disgusting.

        1. Uh…I believe it was YOU who brought up men standing together because pussy is “skanky”. Project much? Incapable of introspection?

  27. And women wonder why men are starting to avoid them like the plague.

    I’m so glad I’m married and 50.

    Were I college age now, I’d be celibate, and wouldn’t even consider dating anyone at college.

    ….hell, I might not even have gone to college the way things are now.

    1. College students in the US have been majority women for over twenty years.

  28. Sue the shit out of them. Find a pitbull lawyer that understands that the law is a perversion and have them knaw this college to the bone.

    1. You have more faith in the system than I do. I believe he’ll lose if he goes to court.

  29. He could get a boatload more cash.

    Plus he should push to punish the people that actually are responsible. I think their jobs and retirement/pension would be a good place to start…..

  30. This is why when most people hear about sexual assault on campus they roll their eyes. Unless the police are called , it’s not assault.

Please to post comments