Title IX

2 Women Dated for Years. After It Ended, JMU Said Their Relationship Was 'Nonconsensual.'

"I'm not the only person that's been in a situation like this before," says Alyssa Reid, a former employee of James Madison University.

|

Ten years ago, Alyssa Reid landed her dream job: assistant director of the speech and debate team at James Madison University (JMU). She also became a faculty member of the School of Communication Studies, where she met a student named Kathryn Lese.

Lese took Reid's speech class in the spring of 2013. The two quickly became best friends. The following year, Lese graduated from JMU and accepted a graduate teaching position with the speech and debate team. The pair worked closely together as friends and colleagues, and traveled together for events.

One night, during a trip to New Jersey for a forensics tournament, Lese told Reid that despite being in a relationship with a man, she was a lesbian, and had developed feelings for her, according to Reid. Though initially reluctant to put their friendship at risk, Reid says she eventually came to reciprocate Lese's feelings.

"When she first told me that she had feelings for me, I immediately told her that we can't be in a relationship," says Reid. "But she was very persistent and eventually it just became a reality after time."

They dated for two and a half years, living together for much of that time.

The relationship ended badly, causing both women much consternation. Almost a year later, on December 4, 2018, Lese filed a Title IX report with JMU. This report then became the basis of a sexual misconduct complaint, and Reid was accused of engaging in a nonconsensual relationship with her former girlfriend.

JMU suspended Reid from teaching. Then, following a hearing where Reid was given no meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegations against her—Lese did not even attend it—the university determined she had violated an aspect of the sexual misconduct policy that had not even existed during the time period in question.

The finding made it impossible for Reid to continue working at JMU; indeed, she had already been denied a promotion and barred from campus. She was hired at another university, sold her house, and moved—but when her new employer found out about the sexual misconduct finding, the offer was abruptly rescinded.

"I was let go a week before the semester began," she says.

Reid is now suing JMU, as well as the U.S. Department of Education, which pushed colleges and universities to adopt unfair sexual misconduct adjudication policies during the years of Barack Obama's presidency. The lawsuit comes at a time of profound national uncertainty about the trajectory of federal education policy as it relates to Title IX, the statute that prohibits sex and gender-based discrimination in schools. Under Obama, the Education Department instructed campus officials to vigorously investigate sexual misconduct, define it broadly, and give accused persons very little recourse. Then, under former President Donald Trump, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded the Obama-era policies and made basic fairness a central component of Title IX adjudication.

Now Joe Biden is president, and he has selected Catherine Lhamon as his Title IX enforcer. The name should be familiar to readers: Lhamon had the exact same job during the Obama era. As assistant secretary for civil rights within the Education Department, she enforced the policies that prompted hundreds of students and professors to sue their institutions after being removed from campus following the sorts of ordeals that Reid faced. No single government official bears more responsibility than Lhamon, and Biden would like to give her back her old job.

Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course. Purging schools of sexual misconduct is a noble goal. Reid herself strongly believed in the mission, describing herself as an advocate.

"I still believe victims and survivors," she says. "I guess I can't not."

But becoming the target of a false accusation has broadened her perspective. At the very least, the Title IX process needs to be reformed, she thinks.

"I'm not the only person that's been in a situation like this before," she says. "It's just heartbreaking."


One of the oddest aspects of the complaint against Reid was that the university had already settled the basic question of whether the relationship was inappropriate—and settled it in Reid's favor.

In May 2016—while the couple was dating—someone else at the university lodged a complaint about them. The university investigated the matter, and the communications department determined that since Reid and Lese were colleagues and not part of a supervisor-employee or teacher-student arrangement, they were free to date.

"They had already investigated this relationship," says Harriet Hageman, Reid's attorney and a senior litigation counsel at the nonpartisan New Civil Liberties Alliance. "Under the existing rules, there was no problem with this relationship between two consenting adults."

Lese's December 2018 complaint, however, asked the university to reconsider the matter. According to Reid's lawsuit, Lese was highly vengeful following the breakup, and out to ruin Reid's life. Nevertheless, the complaint did not allege any specific violation of JMU policy, according to Reid. (Lese did not respond to a request for comment.)

"[Lese] never used any of the terminology that JMU subsequently used in the Title IX proceedings," says Reid. "She identifies our relationship as a romantic relationship and she admitted that it ended on not good terms. I think that's pretty much her exact expression. That somehow became JMU's open door to file a non-consensual relationship claim."

For the next two months, JMU compiled a case against Reid. Investigators instructed her to begin preparing her defense, though they did not spell out the charges. They also asked her to find witnesses to speak on her behalf, which was a challenge, since Reid had no idea what aspects of her behavior were under scrutiny. She was not given access to Lese's statement until after her witnesses were interviewed, she says.

A hearing was set for March 13, 2019. Reid was told that she could not cross-examine Lese directly; she would need to pose her questions to the hearing's chair instead. She was denied the right to have an active attorney present: The Title IX coordinator permitted a "support person" to attend, but this individual was barred from playing any role in the hearing, according to Reid's lawsuit.

Prior to the hearing, Reid thought long and hard about what kinds of questions she would ask the panel to pose to Lese—indeed, her entire defense rested on this line of inquiry. But it was all for naught: neither Lese nor any of Lese's witnesses attended the hearing.

On April 1, 2019, the panel found Reid responsible for violating JMU's "Policy 1340," which prohibits nonconsensual relationships. Reid found this verdict curious, since Policy 1340 had not come into existence until September 2016; the complaint against her referred to events that took place between November 2015 and May 2016.

"That's the ex post facto part of this," says Hageman.

Reid's punishment was a reprimand, but she was also denied the opportunity to apply for a promotion. Humiliated and rejected, she felt she had little choice but to leave JMU. (A spokesperson for the university declined to comment, citing pending litigation.)

Years later, it's still difficult for Reid to talk about what happened; she began to cry as she recounted the details of her departure from JMU. And life became no easier afterward: She was hired by another university, and then fired after the sexual misconduct finding became public.

"My next career was also ruined," says Reid. "I had to cash out my 401(k) and find a completely different job."


Reid's lawsuit alleges that JMU violated her due process rights, and names various university officials as defendants. (None responded to a request for comment.) Her lawsuit also targets the Department of Education for pushing the Title IX sexual misconduct standards that she thinks produced this outcome.

Reid is hardly alone. Hundreds of university students and professors have sued their institutions for denying them due process under such circumstances; more than half of them have won. Judges often find the elements of Title IX hearings to be confounding. In a 2018 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that the University of Michigan had wrongly prohibited cross-examination and must instead provide opportunities for the accuser and the accused to question one another.

"Title IX is a very simple statute—you read it, you know what it means," says Hageman. "It has been turned on its head. It has been used in such a bizarre way. Schools and universities are simply not equipped to move forward with these kinds of life altering proceedings."

The new Title IX guidance, which was codified by the Trump administration in August 2020, made cross-examination a fundamental component of such hearings. But it's not clear whether Biden administration will uphold this standard. In July, Lhamon told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) that the Title IX rules did not include any presumption of innocence. She eventually conceded that adjudicators should merely be "open to the possibility" that an accused person was telling the truth.

The committee deadlocked on whether to advance Lhamon's nomination, leaving her fate in the hands of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who could still motion for a full Senate vote on her confirmation. Cases like Reid's show precisely why it would be reckless to put Lhamon back in charge: Fundamental civil liberties are at stake.

Hageman notes that she doesn't object to Title IX as the law was originally intended—on the contrary, she's grateful for it. In 1972, when Title IX went into effect, Hageman was in junior high. The new law prohibited sex-based discrimination, and compelled Hageman's school to add athletic programs and clubs for young girls.

"Title IX isn't really the problem in my opinion," she says. "It's how it's interpreted and applied in this circumstance. They've gone so far overboard."

NEXT: Government Is Lousy at Protecting Civil Liberties, Say Americans

Title IX Due Process Sexual Harassment LGBT Biden Administration Betsy DeVos

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.

Please to post comments

189 responses to “2 Women Dated for Years. After It Ended, JMU Said Their Relationship Was 'Nonconsensual.'

  1. LOL

    Libs getting skewered by their own bullshit?

    Fuck em.

    1. It’s almost as if…wait….procedural requirements and due process were, I dunno…put in place for….something……?

      Dang, almost had it there

      1. This is prattle, which I could easily identify.

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.REc simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

          Click & Chang your Life …………… VISIT HERE

          1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Hax Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

    2. What’s even dumber is she hasn’t learned anything.

      “I still believe victims and survivors,” she says. “I guess I can’t not.”

      Kind of hard to help someone who wants to keep being a victim. Sympathize, sort of, for being so willfully blind. But for getting caught up in the process she still believes in? Not likely. Like a mugger getting mugged: too bad, so sad,

      1. “Believe victims and survivors” is a stupid slogan. Believe logic supported by evidence, regardless of where it points. Anything else is idiotic zealotry.

      2. “Like a mugger getting mugged: too bad, so sad,”

        Like a mugger getting mugged, and bitching about the injustice.

      3. Yeah, man, agreed!

        Think of the precedent here… ANY end to a relationship, where one or both of the participants is pissed off and the end of it, can now end with one or both getting fired, or otherwise punished!

        (I do generally agree with “at will” hire-and-fire policies, so long as contractual obligations are met… I agree legally, if not always ethically-morally, that is. Not all bad things should be outlawed).

      4. What’s even dumber is she hasn’t learned anything.

        My experience, “I’m in a relationship, but I want to be with you.” doesn’t translate into “long term relationship that ends amicably”. Considering the stats and anecdotes about lesbians, such translation is exceptionally dumb.

        1. Overall, same-sex couples reported shorter relationship lengths than different-sex couples (Joyner et al., 2017). And male same-sex couples experienced significantly higher rates of dissolution than female couples or different-sex couples.

          From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201710/are-same-sex-or-heterosexual-relationships-more-stable

          Sounds like you are correct!

          1. “same-sex couples reported shorter relationship length”

            That seems obvious when you account for the fact that “different-sex” is far more likely to involve children, or the desire for children.

            There’s no ticking biological clock with same-sex relationships. No reason to make excuses for bullshit.

          2. Reid is finding out how men are treated by these tribunals that colleges were empowered to run by the Obama and Biden Administration’s. DeVos and the DOE under Trump had stopped these star chamber proceedings by allowing the accused to have legal representation present, and also allowing the accused to cross examine their accuser. These Title IX rules violate the Sixth Amendmentt, and as such should be overridden by a real court. But in the case of Reid, I find it hard to have sympathy for her. She knew, or should have known, that Lese was a nut, as Lese approaching Reid in the manner described should have set alarm bells off immediately. I mean, “I’m with a man, but I wanna be a lesbian with you” isn’t exactly the way to start a “long term relationship”.

          3. Q: What does a lesbian take to a second date?
            A: A U-Haul.

        2. Bingo. If she’ll cheat with you, she’ll cheat on you. Reid should have steered clear.

          -jcr

      5. If lesbians hate men so much, why do so many of them focus their efforts on trying to look like one?

        1. It has not been my experience that lesbians in general hate men.

          1. I’ve had scads of lesbian friends over the years. Dykes and the far less obvious. They come in all types.

            The manhaters are just an outlier. They exist, but are a minority of the group. There are more than a few manhating straight women, too.

            1. ‘There are more than a few man hating straight women too.’
              It’s the ones that look to date men to make both their lives miserable that give the others a bad reputation lol

            2. My first wife was a man-hater who came from a family of man-haters…

          2. My experience with Lesbians is that there are essentially two types: homosexual and bisexual. Most of the man hating Lesbians I have met have been bisexuals, often after a disastrous relationship, esp marriage, with a guy. I can usually tell the difference, by the existence of some sexual tension with the bisexuals, but none with the homosexuals. I find the man haters tiring to be around. Not so, the homosexual Lesbians I have met.

          3. It’s been my experience a lot of them do. They just tend to keep it just under the surface. Yet many try and look like men.

            1. Yeah, its funny that most of the time you can look at a lesbian couple and immediately figure out which one is the “husband” and which is the “wife”. They’re like vegetarians; they really want a hamburger so they go to great lengths to make veggie burgers that look like a real burger, taste like a real burger, etc. Geez, just get a burger already.

          4. Yeah, most lesbians don’t hate men. That’s a myth. I think there are far more man-haters among heterosexual women.

            It’s much like gay guys. Most of them don’t hate women. They just don’t like them in “that” way.

          5. It has mine. To the point of one threatening to beat my face in because I walked into the men’s room while she was cleaning it (she was our janitor) to get a tissue to blow my nose!

            That’s why I find it hard to accept a “normal” diagnosis for homosexuality. I know many gay women and men. And, other than one, they all seem so have serious issues in relating to other human beings.

        2. She looks like Chris Farley in makeup. What’s not to love?
          I hope she can do an amusing pratfall. Chris was the best.

          1. I know! I looked and thought,”He’s alive!”

          2. If so, I would pay for her to do The whole Farley thing at a party. It would be so deliciously awkward and make everyone visibly uncomfortable. Especially progs.

            Yes, I would pay good money to see that.

            1. It’s hard to have much sympathy for her when she’s got stellar job offers right here in the comments.

        3. Gays and Lesbians do not, as a class, hate the opposite sex. They simply don’t prefer the opposite sex naked.

          1. That might be true of gays, but a good number of lesbians sexuality is based on anger and rejection.

          2. To those that do prefer the opposite sex naked, that could be a considered a form of hate. Exceedingly similar for those who advocate trans rights… or simply oppose sexism.

      6. If only Comrade Stalin knew.

      7. Yes, she hasn’t learned the proper lesson.

      8. It’s the ‘chickens for the colonel’ committee. Funny she didn’t learn anything about judicial justice.

      9. She wants us to believe her, but not any of those icky men.

    3. You hire people like this and put them in charge of ‘educating’ kids – no wonder our country and culture is a mess.

    4. LOL! I read a few sentences; this happens countless times everyday. Who gives fuck?

    5. What’s worse is that they will just keep making the mistakes and not learn.

  2. “assistant director of the speech and debate team at James Madison University (JMU)”

    This should be an article about why college costs have skyrocketed

    1. Assistant director. So not the Master Debater, then.

      1. But not bilingual.

        1. No, but I’ll bet she can accelerate to 69, lickety split.

      2. According to the article, she’s a cunning linguist.

    2. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, manage. Those who can’t manage, assist.

      1. Those who check enough boxes become and assistant somethingorother in academia.

    3. You’re telling me!

      Based on the picture, I thought this was an article about Chris Farley.

      Imagine my shock when I found it was about a gay couple that isn’t happier and better adjusted than everyone else, like Hollywood says.

      1. Her’s the tip-off: No “van down by the river.”

        1. Here’s the tip-off. Sorry. Freudian slip. 🙂

  3. Stop playing their game do not comply

    1. That’s what I was thinking. Her mistake was not lawyering up when they started their crap.

  4. “Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course”

    Robbie, you have to stop writing this garbage. It is clear that they donot have good intentions. It’s a power grab.

    1. Yeah, I do not remotely get the non-stop benefit of the doubt for people who have shown that they do not have good intentions incessantly.

    2. Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course

      Citation needed.

      1. Well that large path to hell is a good give away.

        1. A highway to hell, and it is NOT paved with “good intentions.”

          This is about the power to manipulate and control and bring about a vision of the world, that would be a nightmare worthy of H Bosch.

    3. ” It is clear that they do not have good intentions.”

      It’s not clear what their intentions are. And Robby is wrong for asserting otherwise.

      But, ultimately they do not matter.

      Actions matter.

      That Robby thinks intentions are key is an embarrassment to critical thinking.

    4. To Robbie the fact that she’s a Democrat proves the good intentions despite any real world consequences. Remember, Kauvanaugh was presumed guilty by him because of ridiculous and unprovable accusations but Biden and DeBlasio deserved the benefit of the doubt because despite verification of the facts from third parties.

      The only thing I can tell from this article is that Reid is a Democrat. Everything else is him writing a narrative about how noble Democrats with their good intentions are unintentionally catching an ally in their noble jihad. Fuck the marxist scum, they deserve the attentions of the monster they created.

    5. I thought it was a decent turn of phrase, as everyone knows what the road to heck is paved with. Specifically referencing someone’s “good intentions” is as subtle as a slap in the face.

      It’s only one step above “bless his heart” (which is always followed by some variant of “but he’s a moron”)

      1. Like George Carlin said at a funeral: “He’s an asshole!…But a well-meaning asshole!”

    6. Exactly so. What Llamon has is the same mindset that fucktards who threaten people with consequences now/when power is in the hands of ‘their betters’ all share. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant. A bureaucrat claiming ‘this is for your own good’, because social ‘justice’ or equity, who the next day or in private is crowing about rubbing the decision in the serfs’ faces is an execrable piece of filth.

    7. When life hands you a Lhamon you make Lhamonade .

  5. “‘I still believe victims and survivors.’ Becoming the target in an investigation has broadened her perspective.” Apparently not. If she still believes someone simply because of an allegation, then she’s getting what she deserves.

    1. Cult members often find it rewarding and honorable to sacrifice themselves for the cause as it only reaffirms their belief that the cause is true and right.

    2. Few things in life more vicious than a lesbian breakup.

      1. On display is the only catfight I never want to witness, let alone masturbate to.

  6. If you are the person retroactively withdrawing consent, you raped yourself.

    1. Go on…

    2. I think her partner had a hand in it.

  7. The US is an at-will country (for the most part) and you can be fired for any reason outside of a few narrow non-discrimination reasons. Why should college employees get special due process rights that the rest of us do not? Suck it up buttercup.

    1. I believe the idea behind tenure is academic freedom. It’s so professors can’t be fired based upon political whims of their bosses or other bullshit that has nothing to do with their work.

      I can see the point, but I can also see it being abused.

      1. Was she a tenured professor or an untenured assistant director?

        1. I didn’t read into that much detail. I just saw the picture and thought “Who could have consensual anything with that?”

        2. Or am untenured assistant to the director.

      2. Thomas Sowell has poinred out that tenure, far from protecting academic freedom, creates a new academic elite.

    2. While I can somewhat understand your points where it concerns employees, there are other issues.

      First, she wasn’t just fired, but blacklisted due to the charge. She was publicly called a rapist by what is effectively a court. Not only is this defamation by any understanding of the term, but the fact that they have the appearance of judicial authority means that they have an obligation to not willfully ignore the facts.

      Secondly, this rule also applies to students. Students without the wealth, understanding, and connections that this professor obviously has. We have seen multiple times that some boy is punished after a bad breakup or has charges more or less made up out of thin air. Then he’s railroaded through a mockery of a judicial system that convicts him based on accusation alone. The kid is then thrown out of school, even if on the cusp of graduation, out four years of life and all the funds he poured into his education. Let’s also mention (for the leftists) how the boys in this case are disproportionately minorities from poorer families who can’t fight it in a real court.

      Finally, let’s discuss how the real courts have repeatedly expressed shock and dismay at the absolute insanity on display in these Title IX hearings, yet we seem to be repeating this same problem over and over.

      This won’t end until the people responsible are held personally liable either civilly or criminally.

    3. Most stupid and ignorant comment in response, given the source, no surprise. Next time, read the article, absorb the facts, do some research on the material, and, then, if you still are going to produce stupid comments, be prepared to be called and idiot. You are arguing for false accusations, lack of due process, star chambers, and a system that runs counter to the civil liberties and rights that civilized nations hold dear. Given that this is not a first with you, perhaps you should change your screen name to something that reflects this.

      1. I suspect that is what he/she/it is here for; throwing brickbats to gin up a thread of outrage. And as is typical for trolls, when he/she/it gets the responses they are seeking, they feed on it.

        I have no idea WTF motivates them; some like KAR and that holocaust denier are just plan bat shit crazy; you almost want to feel sorry for them. Some, like Rev Arty, are just assholes; but regardless I suspect it is like the old Irish saying: “Contention is better than loneliness.”

  8. Deserves to get fired for wearing a bow tie.

    1. From the picture, they’re justifiably preventing her from drawing off health insurance disproportionately. I’m gonna need to see a vaccine passport before I can believe she’s owed a job to begin with.

    2. But bow ties are cool!

      1. Orville Redenbacher agrees.

  9. Robbie means it in the macadam sense.

  10. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what.
    We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://www.ozalm.com/2021/08/lovely-image-with-msg.html

  11. Lese told Reid that despite being in a relationship with a man, she was a lesbian

    The relationship ended badly, causing both women much consternation.

    The lack of an ‘it’ to stick in crazy does not void the “Don’t stick it in crazy.” rule.

    Those gullible religious conservatives, foolishly thinking that people ‘discovering their sexuality’ might not be a good idea and would/could undermine interpersonal relationships.

  12. The victimhood hierarchy in academia is all over the place. The only thing we know as an absolute certainty is that Asians are at the very bottom.

    1. Below white males?

      I guess Asians are white adjacent, so…

      This is all so confusing.

      1. Asians lack the power structure of the white male, while also lacking any claims to victimhood.

        I don’t pretend to know why that is.

      2. Wasians.

      3. It helps if you don’t think about it. Just hate whoever they point to until they point to someone else.

      4. Below white males?

        In academia, yes.

  13. I think that Robby is right and JMU’s actions are a travesty, but it drives me crazy how often Reason doesn’t try to tell the other side of the story. Based on the linked complaint, here are some more details I think are relevant.

    – Lese, the accuser, claimed that after she came out to Reid, Reid initially declined to have a relationship but ultimately changed her mind and pursued Lese. (Reid says that Lese was the pursuer the whole time).

    – Lese says that while she was still a graduate student, Reid instructed her to keep their relationship a secret. (They were both in relationships with other people when they got together – it’s not clear how much overlap there was, but that could be another reason for the secrecy.)

    – The 2016 investigation seems to have happened after Lese got her graduate degree and took a job with JMU. It didn’t take testimony from Lese or Reid, so the investigator may not have known about Lese’s allegations that Reid told her to keep the earlier phase of their relationship secret.

    If the allegations of the Complaint are true, the JMU procedure was still ridiculous BS – Lese didn’t appear at the hearing, so it was based solely on the investigator’s work and her letter, JMU wouldn’t even show Reid the letter in time to let her prepare, Reid wasn’t permitted a lawyer or to ask Lese questions, and the JMU opinion doesn’t even say why the relationship was supposedly non-consensual, but IMHO Robby should at least put in Lese’s side so we can reach that conclusion in an informed way.

    1. – Lese says that while she was still a graduate student, Reid instructed her to keep their relationship a secret. (They were both in relationships with other people when they got together – it’s not clear how much overlap there was, but that could be another reason for the secrecy.)

      If Reid were a man member of the single gender among the plethora that it’s OK to discriminate against, it seems this alone would’ve been grounds for misconduct/dismissal. It further seems that neither side necessarily refutes this. These policies exist specifically to obviate this sort of bullshit. The idea that it shouldn’t apply or that Reid should get special treatment because gay is utter horseshit.

      1. Yeah, that seems to be the most serious allegation, for whatever that’s worth. I think Reid denies that she did so, but Lese’s letter alleges that Reid told her to keep their relationship on the down low, and that the instructions to keep things secret was “problematic” and “stemmed from the power dynamics of the student-to-faculty relationship.”

        If Robby could have gotten the Lese letter and witness statements, we’d have a better idea of Lese’s side of the case.

    2. ” but it drives me crazy how often Reason doesn’t try to tell the other side of the story.”

      It is the rule, not the exception.

    3. Lese questions, and the JMU opinion doesn’t even say why the relationship was supposedly non-consensual, but IMHO Robby should at least put in Lese’s side so we can reach that conclusion in an informed way.

      You make a fair point, but “a two year non-consensual relationship” tells one about all one needs to know to make an informed conclusion.

      1. One has to call bullshit on ‘a two year non-consensual relationship,’ unless under some truly messed up conditions. Lese is claiming she was simply unable to leave, that is the gist of what JMU has accepted? That beggars (classist!) belief, in the ‘build your own social media platform’ atmosphere of today’s academe.

    4. It does say “Lese did not respond to a request for comment.”

      They may have tried to provide the other side, but the other side had not comment.

      1. How come J Mann could do it?

  14. “Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course.” Oh for fuck’s sake. We’re never going to get anywhere repeating lies like this.

  15. Sorry to see someone railroaded. But sympathy is lessened if this woman didn’t immediately go out and register Libertarian (or was already a libertarian) to show a change of heart.

  16. Strong disagree that Lhamon has good intentions. She’s an extremist. Her goal is for any accusation to be met with immediate expulsion of an accused male without any challenge, recourse, or investigation. The process she advocates is clearly an attempt to find the closest policy to her ideal vision that can make it past at least most lower level courts.

    While eliminating sexual assault is a noble goal, what she wants is not, because her goal is simply revenge for claims previously not being taken seriously enough.

    1. Yep, meet the new puritans, mostly the same as the old puritans.

      1. Exactly. The kids are not alright.

  17. Exponentially more men (than women) have been fired by universities due to similar sex based allegations. But that inconvenient fact was never mentioned in this Reason article.

    1. And exponentially more male students have been expelled from universities (than women) for similar sex based allegations, especially during the Obama administration (that perceived and treated all male students as sexual predators and all women students as innocent victims).

    2. The slant of the article even implies/assumes #believealllesbians > #believebicuriouswomen.

  18. I feel a perhaps inappropriate amount of schadenfreude at dykes getting treated exactly like men in the most awful ways possible. Welcome to being treated like a man in modern society: You are expendable trash; an unthinking footsoldier at best, a convenient target at worst.

    1. Dykes are ok. Its the faggots and genderqueer you have to worry about.
      I have a strong suspicion that the accuser is the feminine one here.

      1. Robert McCain always says never trust a bisexual.

      2. And you know this how?

  19. Crossing my fingers that Robbie’s “good intentions” comment was sarcastic.

    Crossing them really hard. Really hard.

    1. Don’t get a contracture.

  20. Robbie sez: Title IX, the statute that prohibits sex and gender-based discrimination in schools.

    Title IX sez: No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of…

    I know you can taste that sweet, sweet NYT coin but journalism harder. And I don’t give a fuck how some court has interpreted it somewhere. The wording could not be clearer.

    1. The wording could not be clearer.

      Yes, it’s perfectly clear. The science has evolved and now it has settled: Biological sex is a thing that can be changed with cosmetic surgery and hormones. There are no other differences. It’s all in your head bigot. Now eat your bugs, stay in your pod, get your vaccine, wear your mask, and stop questioning your betters.

      1. Biological sex is a thing that can be changed with cosmetic surgery and hormones AND wishful thinking.

        1. Mostly wishful thinking.

  21. ” . . . the university determined she had violated an aspect of the sexual misconduct policy that had not even existed during the time period in question.”

    Welcome to the world of equality as seen through the lens of the democratic party.
    You want to be treated like a man, you get treated like a man.
    Deal with it, don’t whine about it.

  22. As always, never stick your dick in crazy, even if you don’t have a dick.

    1. Or lickety split.

      1. The research cliterature supports this.

    2. Even if is detachable.

  23. So Reid’s version of the story is that she was pressured into the relationship by Lese. If that was the case, then Reid has the better case for it being nonconsensual. Though on what basis a two and a half year relationship is nonconsensual without some substantial evidence is unclear.

    The ultimate lesson is still, don’t get involved with crazy.

    1. She should be fired for incompetence. The fact that we are where we are is conclusive proof she lost the debate with crazy.

  24. “Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course. Purging schools of sexual misconduct is a noble goal. Reid herself strongly believed in the mission, describing herself as an advocate.”

    “I still believe victims and survivors,” she says. “I guess I can’t not.”

    “But becoming the target of a false accusation has broadened her perspective. At the very least, the Title IX process needs to be reformed, she thinks.”

    “I’m not the only person that’s been in a situation like this before,” she says. “It’s just heartbreaking.”

    So maybe she’s not entirely hopeless, but it seems she was all on board with the “Dear Colleague” approach until it bit her on the ass. Good moral lesson about authority; it’s all fun and games as long as it’s directed toward someone else, whom you do not like or agree with. But inevitably, the power you grant a government or institution to “go get ’em,” can and will turn around and get you.

    1. And the other thing about providing a cudgel:

      “In May 2016—while the couple was dating—someone else at the university lodged a complaint about them.”

      Be it jealously, resentment, lust, greed or whichever carnal sin is foremost, someone will use whatever means are available to fuck with others.

      1. Be it jealously, resentment, lust, greed or whichever carnal sin is foremost, someone will use whatever means are available to fuck with others.

        I’m gonna need more details besides just “There was a complaint filed.” Admittedly purely hypothetical and still doesn’t exactly justify fucking over Lese/Reid, but I could see a complaint being filed simple to hoist JMU and everyone up the chain by their own retard.

        Again, Robby’s slant suggests lesbian women > bi women. I see no reason why Title IX would forbid a complaint that lesbian women > bi women > straight women is the wrong discriminatory hierarchy. The law would be pretty unenforceable self-contradictory nonsense if it only protected women as long as they only had sex with other women.

        1. “…by their own retard.”

          I’m thinking that was intentional.

          1. I figure it may well have been another lesbo upset that Reid was giving Lese a leg up over the lez who wasn’t licking her, maybe for whatever job Lese got. It’s highly improbable that anyone involved in the kerfuffle was Based.

    2. It’s too bad the good moral lesson is only learned after it becomes personal. Why are people incapable of thinking strategically?

      Or, more specifically, why is the left incapable of empathy?

      1. When someone is so convinced or the moral superiority of their beliefs over others, there is no “other side.” You are right, they are wrong. And it is apparently their moral duty to make kingdom come.

      2. Nothing transformative was learned by anyone. Read the story again.

    3. Back in the 1970s conservatives used to joke, “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.” Liberals retorted, “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested and charged with the mugging.” The flipping of sides “once it happens to me” is venerable practice indeed.

      1. Yeah, all those guys in jail are innocent. It’s the system that’s broken.

      2. A libertarian is the one who wears a boot on his head and scares the mugger away.

      3. Assumes a benign reading of “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested and charged with the mugging.” “We need to (falsely) arrest more consevatives and convert them into liberals.” is an equally valid interpretation.

  25. Ten years passing suggests a dyke-otomy between feelings then and now.

    1. Is it a Dyke-otomy between Anal-lytic and Sin-thetic? Isn’t that when a strapon is involved?

  26. The relationship ended badly, causing both women much consternation. Almost a year later, on December 4, 2018, Lese filed a Title IX report with JMU.

    Gay or straight, crazy bitch is gonna crazy bitch.

    1. Nothing like resentful and vengeful to make people buy into current feminist mythology.

  27. “Purging schools of sexual misconduct is a noble goal.” Bullshit. The definition of “sexual misconduct” is too fluid. There’s no hard definition for it. Sexual assault is a crime. It shouldn’t be up to a College or University to handle it, that’s why we have police and a justice system. A College or University has no business getting involved.

    1. ‘The definition of “sexual misconduct” is too fluid.’

      Like squirting.

      1. More like waterboarding.

    2. “”The definition of “sexual misconduct” is too fluid.”‘

      Partly because of politics. We excuse the sexual misconduct according to partisan politics. My NYC mandated sexual harassments class trainer admitted Biden’s sniffing of the hair was indeed sexual harassment. Then went one step further by saying Biden’s touching of the shoulders amounted to sexual assault. She would not condemn Biden for the behavior and probably voted for him.

      Rules apply to the opposite party.

    3. Not being hard is definitely sexual misconduct.

  28. if nobody is a sex how is Title IX a thing?

    1. That anchor has already sailed.

  29. Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course. Purging schools of sexual misconduct is a noble goal.

    Jesus Fucking Christ. Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon do not have good intentions and purging schools of sexual misconduct is not their goal. They’re power-tripping petty little tyrants who enjoy tormenting their victims and the exercise of arbitrary power is their only joy in their otherwise fucked-up, psychopathic little lives. I mean, when you equate asking a girl out on a date or commenting to your buddy on how nice that girl walking by looks with the most foul forms of rape, you’re not just being a little too zealous or “over-reaching” a little bit, you are in fact fucking insane and need to be locked up in a mental institution rather than running an entire powerful agency within the Department of Education. (And the fact that the federal Department of Education even exists at all is a pretty horrifying and sad indictment of how far we strayed from the intent of our Founding Fathers.)

    1. Amen.

      -jcr

    2. Leftists are always presumed to have bona fides. It’s in the Reason stylebook.

    3. “…They’re power-tripping petty little tyrants who enjoy tormenting their victims and the exercise of arbitrary power is their only joy in their otherwise fucked-up, psychopathic little lives…”

      Remember that assholish kid who volunteered for hall monitor in HS?
      Yep!

  30. “anti-social behavior in men presents itself violently. There is a body of research on anti-social behavior in women, but it’s not widely talked about. Anti-social behavior in women presents itself as reputation destruction… and that scales on the internet.”

    1. There’s not a damn thing you can do about it as a woman too. At least with men, there is a chance that violence will lead to mutual respect or one party steering clear of the other. With women, there is no sanctuary, your reputation will be destroyed and with social media it’s very hard to get away from your tormentors. I often wonder if this is what society will look like if men are marginalized enough and the “Patriarchy” is destroyed. What then?

      1. It’s often not merely reputation destruction. It’s property destruction, it’s attempted destruction of means of livelihood, of stability of home. It’s threats of harm to self, to others. If there’s physical violence, and there sometimes is, it is often without warning, and if reciprocated, there will be accusations of misogyny. The use of false police reports to fuck people didn’t originate w/ random autists on the internet, it came from the chronically ‘underappreciated’ and vengeful lashing out.

  31. She shouldn’t be fired for getting mixed up with the evil cheating crazy chick. She should be fired because her so-called job was never worth funding in the first place.

    -jcr

  32. If Universities truly banned relationships between faculty and students, there’d be a lot less faculty, and costs would go down.

    But maybe they’d have to pay more? I know too many professors who consider undergrad sex to be a perk of the job.

    And students who likewise insist they are adults and they should be allowed to “date” professors.

    1. Assumes that universities exist for the benefit of students.

      Do you have any evidence to support this wild presumption?

      1. The purpose of universities, like any other business is to make money and benefit those who own/manage them. Pretending they are anything else is how we got here.

  33. Don’t sleep with you’re students or coworkers.

    How hard is that?

    No exemptions for lesbians.

    1. Correct; regardless of orientation and how cool you think your identity may be at the moment, the aggrieved party [aren’t they always?] now has the means to wreak their vengeance upon you. For life. And they get to be a fucking hero for it.

  34. This decadence is a byproduct of 2.5 trillion dollars., which were deviously enticed into the education market.

  35. I thought it said two women? Opened article and saw some dude? Ha, 8th grade humor is never too old for me sorry.

    1. Someone earlier said something about Chris Farley.

  36. The Atlantic ran a story today trying to explain why male attendance at universities continues to decline and is at it’s lowest historical level. To be fair they did admit this was a problem that needed addressed. They spent a lot of time on socioeconomic issues, focusing on low percentage of male teachers, high single parent households, poverty etc. But they failed to mention the social aspects. Girls are told they need to go to college. Universities actively recruit girls and even give preference to girls. But I wonder how much these kangaroo courts hurt male attendance?
    Yes this case was a lesbian couple, but the vast majority are males who are subjected to these standards. Males at that age think with their other head a lot. Females do to, but that is celebrated as female empowerment. In males it is cast as predatory. Why run the risk? Why tempt fate that your college hookup could suddenly turn into a life ending event? Or that your college girlfriend can suddenly decide she is done with you and lodge charged against you that you can’t defend against? And even if cleared will mark you for life? If it doesn’t factor in their decision to not attend university, it hardly is a strong motivator to attend university.

    1. I was working the COS table at a gun show this past weekend and got a know a young man who has been attending a local community college to get a lower cost jump on his education to be an engineer. On a visit to our premier state school told me that the first half or the orientation was literally a colloquium of institutional apologies for every possible wrong under the sun; for being on “Indian land,” for not having more minority students and faculty, etc. etc. Helped him to make his decision to look elsewhere.

      In addition to exponentially outstripping inflation, higher education has become the joke of the ages. Makes more sense to get certified to perform a skilled trade than to waste a fortune on this.

      1. I worked closely with a lot of faculty as a graduate student. You develop a lot more personal relationship, almost a colleague level relationship, than you do as an undergraduate. Many of them voiced that they much preferred older students to those fresh out of high school. The older students were more dedicated, more studious, more introspective and more courteous. Of course I was in an animal science department but heard the same from professors in the chemistry department, the microbiology department and the range science department. This push for everyone to go to college fresh from high school is a mistake. Many students would be better students and better prepared for life if they took a couple years and worked before making the decision to go to the university. Also, trade schools are definitely an option that isn’t pushed enough.

        1. This doesn’t happen because fresh out of high school the institution gets to tap into mom and dad via FAFSA.

          Once independent, the adult student is going to suddenly pay attention to the price tag. All that bloat will be unappealing

      2. One of the greatest successes of the GI bill was that, when it first was created (and still is) it took a generation of men, mostly, that had life experiences and gave them the opportunity to go to school and better themselves. This help contribute to the boom of the 1950s. It lifted many of them out of poverty but it taught them and subsequent generations that it was because they went to university and thus they concluded that their kids needed to go to the university straight out of high school. Then they disparaged because their kids and grandkids weren’t taking advantage of university education like they did. What wasn’t factored in was that they had lived life before going to the university. They had just come through a horrific, maturing event, and entered into the university mature, responsible adults. I tried pushing my son to go to college straight out of high school. He resisted, he wanted to go active duty. We compromised and he went into the National Guard. He will grow up a lot in the year he has to take off for training. And I now believe he will be better for it .

  37. As government and laws become more and more repressive we must be vigilant calling out the injustice.

    Innocent until proven guilty should apply to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. As well as any laws created by congress should also apply to congress. Instead we are becoming a two class society. Those who need to follow the rules and those who are above the rules.

    This week we have examples where the people above the law have been let off the hook with Gavin Newsom surviving a recall. With the Vogue gala the people above the law were mask-less while the servers who are not above the law were required to be masked.

    New law are requiring federal workers to be masked, but the congress-members and staff are exempt. When deciding who to vote for, the number one question we must as ourselves is “Who is the least authoritarian”

    This may very well be a candidate from one of the authoritarian parties (Democrats and Republicans) if there isn’t any better option available. We need to stop voting for who we believe can win from one of the authoritarian parties (Democrats and Republicans).

    We need alternative parties or independent candidates to gain votes to force the authoritarian parties (Democrats and Republicans) to temper their evil tendencies and prevent them from implementing the nefarious laws.

    1. We have a 4 star general accused of breaking the UCMJ and the Constitution and being praised by the left and the President saying he has full confidence in him, when if any other soldier did that they’d be making big rocks into little rocks for most of their remaining days at Ft. Leavenworth.

  38. No single government official bears more responsibility than Lhamon…

    Seriously? She’s a prom queen judge.

  39. I hope her lawsuit against JMU is successful. This is one of the more egregious and perverse title IX cases that over heard of. Nonsense has gone too far

  40. The upside of this whole tragedy has been observing the outraged squawks from the Gross Old Pervert commentariat conservatives. The certainty that no female would ever give them any must really eat their livers. Sad.

    1. It’s worth noting that this isn’t our usual Title IX case between two underclassmen over a one night stand. Even the article that Reason ran about the student and the Professor (and his wife) recently, it was pretty clear that the man had some sort of mental disability or functional disorder and the undergrad pursued him outside of her department. Reid’s whole defense is pretty much, “Title IX is unfair because I’m gay.” a la Kevin Spacey or Katie Hill.

  41. Sooner or later it had to happen.

  42. The problem with dressing like that other gender is that sometimes you get treated like it.

  43. A chilling thought. Could any private employer have these kangaroo hearings and just put the results in a person’s work file and then fire them? And make sure to tell any one calling for a reference the reason is in their personnel file? It seems that is what schools are doing.

  44. Burn in the fire you created.

  45. This relationship likely started when the younger one was a student. If a relationship is built on deception, it’s not going to last. I bet that’s what came up in the latter investigation, that at least one party admitted they were a thing as faculty-student. I’m surprised they didn’t find this a supervisor-employee relationship, as one definitely could have direct professional power over another.

    Nonconsensual? I don’t think so. Title IX has become a bludgeon.

  46. “Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course.”

    Nope. Stop making excuses for terrible policy.

  47. In other news, an awkward bone was found in Madisons grave

  48. A very weak case against the injustices of Title IX, due to the boss/employee power dynamic here.

    When I was in college, there was a big hub-hub about TAs abd even full professors being involved with coeds (women at that time) in their classes. The TAs claimed they should be free to do so and still grade their work. And, grading at my UC at that time was pretty much done “on the curve”. So the inherent bias of an instructor/student relationship would have had an impact on my own grades.

    It doesn’t take great intelligence to see the problems with this. But then again, most academics seem to be lacking broad intelligence IMHO.

  49. The title of this article makes it sound like JMU initiated the complaint. It was wrong to agree with the plaintiff, but it is also wrong to imply that JMU is the primary one at fault here.

  50. Educators and bureaucrats like Lhamon have good intentions, of course.

    This is not true. The Dear Colleague letter is not intended to address sexual assault. It was designed as a weapon for women to exact revenge on those they think have treated them poorly.

    1. It was designed as a weapon for women to exact revenge on those they think have treated them poorly.

      Not even that. It was a bludgeon for marxists to use to smear and remove anyone at any time, with no need for real evidence.

      -jcr

  51. Having some rough relationship is not a problem among older people, who are often looking for an attractive girl. If you want to learn some working tips for finding relationships online, bdsm websites are great if you need an opportunity at searching for all sorts partners of free of charge. You’ll have much better luck on those compared to dating regularly, which is why online dating is becoming more popular.

Comments are closed.