Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Student Agreed to Orgy, But Later Called It Sexual Assault, Lawsuit Claims

Judge says that University of California, Santa Barbara, may have denied accused male student due process

Bowie15 | DreamstimeBowie15 | DreamstimeIn 2015, a male student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was suspended and banned from participating in student organizations after being accused of sexual assault by another student with whom he had participated in group sex.

Last week, a federal judge in California issued a decision allowing the student's due process and sex discrimination lawsuit against the school to move on to the next stage of litigation—a welcome change from the usual judicial deference to university tribunals.

The case arises out of celebratory end-of-year trip to Lake Tahoe in June 2014. According to the plaintiff's complaint, he and the three others present did not realize that his accuser, known only as Jane Doe, had taken prescribed pain medication and consumed five drinks before the orgy began. In his lawsuit against the university, the accused student stated his understanding that

Jane Doe was a willing participant throughout—getting on top of Plaintiff at one point, kissing him passionately, rubbing his hair during oral sex, and verbalizing that she liked what he was doing. Jane Doe did not exhibit any signs of incapacitation and the following morning, the friends joked about the night before.

The plaintiff's lawsuit details how the university's investigator—who is also a named defendant in the case—refused to revise her first investigative report even though the plaintiff said it was "riddled with various inaccuracies and mischaracterized Plaintiff's testimony." At his first hearing, he alleges that although Jane Doe was allowed to present character witnesses, he was not. When the hearing committee asked to re-open the hearing to ask the witnesses more questions, the investigator prepared a second investigative report containing new evidence, which the plaintiff received just three-and-a-half hours before his second hearing. Unsurprisingly, he was found guilty and suspended for two quarters.

Universities, under pressure from activists and the federal government to address campus sexual misconduct, have eliminated many critical procedural protections for students accused of these serious offenses. As a result, over the past six years, more than 160 college men have filed lawsuits challenging the unfair procedures they encountered in campus sexual misconduct proceedings.

In many of these lawsuits, judges have acknowledged the unfairness of the proceedings but given near-total deference to schools' decisions about how to try these cases. A finding of responsibility on sexual misconduct charges carries serious, lifelong consequences—as it should if someone has actually committed sexual misconduct. But when you combine a low evidentiary standard with shoddy and/or biased investigative procedures, a lack of adequate representation, and other procedural deficiencies, the result is that most schools have simply made it easier to find accused students responsible, whether or not they actually are. And given the difficulty these students face in transferring to other schools or finding employment with such a serious blemish on their record, this is profoundly unfair. We can't create a de facto college sex offender registry without allowing students a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.

That's why the judge's decision in this case was so refreshing and much-needed. After ruling that "the short notice, one-sided hearing, and failure to properly explain the new evidence together may have indeed violated the Plaintiff's due process rights," the judge stated that universities "have the responsibility to conduct unbiased investigations and cannot distort proceedings in order to find accused perpetrators guilty more often regardless of due process or basic fairness."

Photo Credit: Bowie15 | Dreamstime

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These colleges are just reaping what they sowed.

    At least having a bunch of bankrupted colleges would allow new ones to open and the hiring of non-communist faculty.

  • mtrueman||

    College enrollment in the USA has never been higher. Youngsters today appreciate these anti-rape campaigns like never before.

  • Brandybuck||

    Enrollment is high because no one (but the parents) have to pay for any of it.

  • patches44||

    That's one of the things that I find amusing about the Millenials in their rabid support for Bernie's "free college" promises. Somehow it doesn't dawn on them that that only happens with a system of competitive examinations ala Japan or Germany. And the Free slots will be rationed to those that can perform. The clods will be relegated to trade programs and hairdressing school. And their beloved Social Sciences will start to dry up.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The "Free College" idea strikes me as an attempt to keep enrollments high, protecting the sinecures enjoyed by Liberal Progressive faculty who are otherwise barely qualified for jobs in McDonalds.

  • widget||

    College enrollment in the USA has never been higher.

    By young women mostly. Some college campuses are sporting a 2 to1 ratio of women to men. What's up with that?

  • Bubba Jones||

    They are trolling for husbands.

  • JFDeplorable||

    Not any more, bubba. Men have been de-balled over the past 30 years by so-called feminists. As a result, men in general no longer strive to achieve much. Millennial males (I refuse to call them men) are quite comfortable living with either Mommy (34 percent do) or with a gal pal who either earns a decent living OR lives quite comfortably off government assistance. Remember Pajama Boy? THAT is the face of today's "men." Not husband material by any stretch.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Nothing wrong with that as long as the chicks aren't fattys, or uggos. Or fatty uggos.

  • MarkLastname||

    They'd be more credible campaigns if the things they campaigned against were actually rape; as it stands they're more accurately described as anti-sex campaigns.

  • Hank Phillips||

    George Orwell's Junior Antisex League meets Robert Rimmer's Harrad Experiment in the Octagon.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    At least having a bunch of bankrupted colleges would allow new ones to open and the hiring of non-communist faculty state governments to bail them out at taxpayer expense so that they can continue on with business as usual.

    FTFY

  • GILMORE™||

    at first i thought it was Soave, but then i noticed that it was logical, well-written, and spent more time on legal facts than with unnecessary gestures of "OK vs. Not-Okay"-wokeness.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    To be sure, "as it should if someone has actually committed sexual misconduct" is quite the value judgment.

  • ||

    Graduating from UCSB is a lifelong consequence. They're liberating these students from that burden. Possibly for life.

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm going to give it a pass because in the process she suggests that the definition of sexual misconduct should be higher than it is (referencing the low evidentiary standard);

    Whereas the Golden-Coiffured One would have hemmed and hawed to the tune of = "to be sure, there are differing notions about what qualifies as sexual assault, and we should always give the benefit of the doubt to victims...", question-begging gibberish, etc.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Get your ass over to the Fifty Shades of Comey thread.

  • ||

    Translation: "At first I was hoping Soave was the author so I could gripe about him, but when it wasn't, I decided to shoehorn a dig at him, anyway, cucumber Soave sucks, amirite guyz?"

    Seriously, the bitching about Soave is tiresome.

  • GILMORE™||

    That was not bitching. It was a celebration.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    I don't know who you are mister, but you should know it is H&R canon that Gilmore never bitches, and WakaWaka never complains.

  • GILMORE™||

    Didn't you say the other day that you only showed up a year or 2 ago?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Soave and deboner was dated when I was in Junior High.

  • IceTrey||

    Why is the school even ajudicating actions which took place off campus? If she thinks she was assualted she should go to the Tahoe police.

  • Calidissident||

    Beyond the obvious legal and activist pressure, it's essentially punishment for student conduct, which can happen for a variety of reasons. Not a defense of the process by any means.

  • Tony||

    Why do bitches be crazy?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why are you crazy Tony?

  • Tony||

    I'm the only sane person in existence.

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, no. That's Wonko.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    So why in hell do you want to give all those insane government bureaucrats more and more power over you? I can understand you wanting power over us, but why extend that to giving the whackos power over you?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Tony||

    I don't want to give them more power over me. I want them to have a lot less power over me.

    I just want more progressive taxation to pay for a couple more social programs than we already have.

  • chemjeff||

    Higher taxation *is* more power over you, Tony.

  • Tony||

    But there are competing powers. A health crisis is nature asserting power over me. If a few extra bucks in taxes means I can get treated and not go bankrupt in the process, then that's more net freedom for me.

  • chemjeff||

    Well at least you concede the point that higher taxation is one means of government exercising power over you.

    "If a few extra bucks in taxes means I can get treated and not go bankrupt in the process, then that's more net freedom for me."

    If you are willing to pay more in taxes in order to get decent health care when you need it, then why not just get health insurance and leave other taxpayers out of it?

  • Tony||

    We've tried it that way for a long time and ended up with double the per capita health costs of other advanced countries, and the reason is we don't apply the efficiencies and cost controls that come with a universal system.

    There's no freedom principle at work here at all. Cheaper universal healthcare is the freest of all options, even if it means a bump in payroll taxes. What's at work here are entrenched industry interests. That's what libertarianism is defending on this issue, dressing it up in a hilarious ironic joke about individual liberty, as it does for so many other topics. (Play butt boy for powerful industrial interests, that is.)

  • sarcasmic||

    sWe've tried it that way for a long time and ended up with double the per capita health costs of other advanced countries, and the reason is we don't apply the efficiencies and cost controls that come with a universal system.

    Wow. So many factual errors in one sentence I don't even know where to start. Considering the fact that you know these errors and are saying them because you are a dishonest cunt, I won't even bother.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The oppressor always gets more net freedom by extracting it from the oppressed.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I guess the government isn't exercising any power over people when they're telling you when to bake cakes, forcing you to buy health insurance, restricting your right to defend yourself, setting up huge barriers to entry for your career, forcing small businesses to incur massive costs once they hit that magic Obamacare number of employees, preventing you from renting out your apartment to travelers, preventing you from utilizing a ridesharing app, telling you what you can and cannot build on your own private property, spying on you and lying about it, murdering citizens with drones, setting up indefinite detention, not allowing low-skilled workers to work below the government-mandated price floor, etc.

    And breaking those rules can result in the government coming in armed with guns so that you won't resist when they lock you in a cage

    But yeah, it's less power as long as some states can smoke pot, or are building gender neutral bathrooms or something

  • sarcasmic||

    He doesn't want them to have more power over him. He wants them to have more power over people he doesn't like.

  • Tony||

    Like polluters and various others who do harm with relative impunity? You're the ones arguing for free shit, you do it all the time, and you don't ever fucking realize it because your sanctimony gets in the way.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Tony, you not understanding libertarian arguments doesn't make them wrong.

  • Tony||

    Your argument is that we shouldn't make polluters pay for the damage they cause to other people because pollution is a hoax dreamed up by Al Gore. Real robust stuff.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    That's not my argument at all, but thanks for highlighting that you're dishonest as well as ignorant. Fuck along now.

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, no. Libertarians have no problem when polluters are made to pay for damages. Thing is, there have to be like actual damages and stuff.

  • Tony||

    So your idea of small government is to hire millions of agents to around India and China and elsewhere assessing the damage to each person caused by each particular coal plant in the US?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tony could read The Direct Use of Coal published back in 1979 by Princeton U. It features health effects correlations over every square kilometer in These States. The math says that replacing coal wattage with nuclear power generation could save some 45,000 lives per year. Today's Luddites want to replace the power output with blackouts. Australia and Econazi Germany may soon provide us with visual data on the health hazard of banning energy. But statistics for existing dark paradises like North Korea show really high death rates.

  • Tony||

    Why aren't other forms of harm mere civil matters? I murder you, you sue me for damages, simple.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Seek help

  • Hank Phillips||

    Actual?! You mean real, existing--as opposed to prophesy inspired by Divine Revelation? How cruel!

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    What an intellectually honest argument, Tony. Clearly the sanest one here

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Your argument is that we shouldn't make polluters pay for the damage they cause to other people because pollution is a hoax dreamed up by Al Gore. Real robust stuff.

    Oh, Tony.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    CO2 isn't a pollutant you stupid bitch. Tony, I always wonder if you're such a diengenuous and tiresome cunt in real life, or you save it up for the commentariat.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Only the hot ones.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So, from the University's ruling you have to get a blood toxicology report on all participants becore engaging in an orgy, because the other people not being obviously impaired is not a defense.

  • damikesc||

    I'd also wonder why she's the apparently the ONLY one who was intoxicated. The others, apparently, were all stone-cold sober. Otherwise, it'd be illogical to say that drunk person A (who cannot give consent) could rape drunk person B (who also couldn't give consent) but it, vice-versa, it is totally different.

    Boys --- fuck a girl on campus and then IMMEDIATELY accuse her of rape. Protect yourself! If you can find a feminist to nail, even better.

  • mtrueman||

    "Boys --- fuck a girl on campus and then IMMEDIATELY accuse her of rape."

    Don't do that boys. Just be aware that sex with strangers can be risky.

  • Brian||

    Why are you pretending to know about sex?

  • MarkLastname||

    He's watched a lot of law and order SVU, so he knows all about it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Im sure his uncle or priest, maybe both, taught him all about sex when he was a young fella.

  • ||

    you have to get a blood toxicology report on all participants becore engaging in an orgy

    My extensive research on experience with orgies suggests that it's capable to chemically impair oneself during the event as well.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, but you usyslky do not file a complaint afainst yourself for taking advantage of yourself while you were drunk.

    My general thinking on this is that, if you get yourself intoxicated that you are responsible for everything your drunk self decides to do, even if you think it was a terrible decision when you sober up.

  • ||

    Yes, but you usyslky do not file a complaint afainst yourself for taking advantage of yourself while you were drunk.

    Sorry, *during* event as well. So, not just a blood toxicology report before, but an affirmative consent toxicology report. Sober at the beginning, the end, and every point in between.

  • Robert||

    I nominate "usyslky" as the new "covfefe".

  • Robert||

    That's for the John award, I mean.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Now there's an idea. Accuse yourself of sexual misconduct, then sue the school for providing an unsafe environment. They will have to lay big as it was violent serial self rape.

  • damikesc||

    A dude would be wise to videotape all sexual encounters in college. From start-to-finish. Even if "illegal", you can embarrass the shit out of the accuser if needed.

  • mtrueman||

    "A dude would be wise to videotape all sexual encounters in college. "

    Or confine his sexual activity to chickens, a species who's yet to file charges against humans on any grounds.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    SIV? Is that you?

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    WakaWaka:Domestic Dissident::mrtrueman:SIV

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I guess there really is somebody out there for everybody.

  • Calidissident||

    That's fucking creepy dude. If you're that worried about the girl you're sleeping with falsely accusing you of rape, don't have sex with her.

  • Griffin3||

    That's fucking creepy dude. If you're that worried about the girl you're sleeping with falsely accusing you of rape 18 months later, after changing her major and being talked into it by radical feminist classmates and authority figures, which you had no clue would happen at the time, don't have sex with her.

    It's like you aren't even from around here.

  • Calidissident||

    I repeat: If you are that afraid of a girl falsely accusing you of rape, do not sleep with her. Or ask her if she is ok with it being taped. If you seriously think making sex tapes of everyone you sleep with without their consent is the right thing to do, you need help.

  • ||

    Or ask her if she is ok with it being taped.

    Before getting it on, pen and mail a letter to your local congresscritter *together* requesting the repeal of Title IX or detailing its misapplication in this regard. Refuse the sexual advances of any girl or woman with whom you have not mailed a letter. Not only will it make intentions clear in the specific cases of direct sexual participation and subsequent refutation, it would take care of (or at least address) those cases where the woman was and is wholly consenting as well as those where her wishes were wholly respected and/or the male student was only incidentally/fictitiously involved.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Paper trail, have one.

  • Calidissident||

    I realize you're being facetious, all I was saying is that if you want to record your sexual encounters, get the consent of the other party. I wasn't even thinking about it as evidence for a rape trial, just from the perspective of making sure everyone is on board before you go making a sex tape.

  • damikesc||

    And the girl can say she changed her mind during it. Even if you have a signed form, she could've changed her mind later. And that will stand for many schools.

    Screw that.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Isn't high time they did a remake or reboot of "Sex, Lies & Videotape" anyway?

    They'd have to change the last part of the title, of course. And they'd probably make the setting a college campus. Of course, this time around it would also be a horror flick.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Sex, Lies and MP4 doesn't have the same ring to it.

  • pan fried wylie||

    it's the meter.

    Sex

    Lies

    and Vi-de-o-tape

  • Robert||

    Taped? If you're college age, isn't that kiddie porn?

  • damikesc||

    Unless you are absolutely positive you'll be marrying her and never, ever divorcing --- there is a risk she can, long after the fact, decide it was "rape". And the accusation ALONE is enough to ruin lives.

    If you're in college, relationships end. That is life. And then the girl can decide "You know, he raped me two years ago". And sexual contact after the "rape", any correspondence between the two after the "rape", etc --- all are not permitted as defense of the charge.

    Is there a human on Earth you trust so much as to say "At no point, ever, will they ever be upset with me"?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What if her tits are really, really awesome. Like better than Katy Perry's?

  • ||

    "the short notice, one-sided hearing, and failure to properly explain the new evidence together may have indeed violated the Plaintiff's due process rights,"

    Uh-huh... Uh-huh... Uh-huh...

    "have the responsibility to conduct unbiased investigations and cannot distort proceedings in order to find accused perpetrators guilty more often regardless of due process or basic fairness."

    Uh-hu-WAIT! WUT??? No! They have the responsibility to butt the hell out or turn it over to the police. Barring any conviction, if one or both students have a problem with it, they can quit or both be unenrolled. Everything else is *literally* he said/she said. Ironically, the only reason a University should be involved is in the case where the harassment falls within the curriculum, like an alleged victim drawing attention to herself and impugning her alleged rapist by carrying a mattress around as performance art. Even then, The University should be involved inasmuch as aiding the determination as to whether the mattress carrying is acceptable conduct and/or performance art.

  • ||

    Is/has there been any follow-up on any of this? I recall Nungesser's ongoing struggles and Sulkowicz's continued attention whoring, but what's the norm or expected? Is the punishment an effective banishment from post-secondary education for all time? Does the 'successfully accused'(?) just take his grades and tuition down the road to the next University and graduate there? Does this show up on a background check and prevent them from gaining employment?

    Not that I think the issue isn't unfair, but The University is free to set its rules for conduct unbecoming and if the solution is to graduate from their competitor, I don't know how egregious some of these cases are.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Does this show up on a background check and prevent them from gaining employment?

    In the case of Nungesser, since a simple Google search of his name will turn up a lot of news stories about what happened, I'd say yes, it probably at least makes it very difficult for him to find a job. Even a sympathetic hiring manager, who recognizes the case for the witch hunt that it was, might not want the negative attention that comes from hiring an accused rapist. Regardless of how bogus the accusation was.

  • ||

    Right, I thought there was a more clear cut case of defamation there. I was more curious about 'a male student' and 'Jane Doe'. If the worst lifelong effect of this is that 'a male student' has to explain or make up a reason to his first employer why he switched schools, I'm a bit less sympathetic. You say which hunt, I say orgy-tuition/credit swap.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It actually says "Orgy-Tuition/Credit Swap" on my college diploma.

  • ||

    I'm beginning to think that the real problem is a short supply of pimps or madams. It seems there are plenty of willing Janes who want wanton and degrading sex and would be willing to pay a small fee to have their partner keep their mouth shut/disappear.

  • widget||

    Orgy?

    Just pinging on that.

  • widget||

    OK, so I have never been invited to an orgy.

    Evidently, Batman and Robin have though.

    It turns out Adam West (recently deceased) was quite the player in this. Though he did get tossed out one for showing up with the Boy Wonder in full dress.

  • widget||

  • LarryWilson||

    Who the fuck uses their real name at a orgy?

  • ||

    Silvio Berlusconi? Donald Trump? Bill Clinton?

  • Africanis||

    I am shock at you people, it is rape when she says it's rape dammit! Even if you didn't touch her your mere presence may trigger some sexual fantasy she didn't consent too. It was an orgy until it was a mass rape, why won't you people get a clue. I constantly feel women undressing me with their eyes, I just need to find a really rich one to sue for it!

  • pan fried wylie||

    presence? Do you even Butterfly Effect, bro? If a man in Japan steps on a butterfly, essentially, he just raped the entire world.

  • Africanis||

    Man, I didn't even go that deep, but yeah it's one big rapapolooza that they probably taped and put on a Jav site!

  • ||

    O.R.G.Y: Organization for the Rational Guidance of Youth.

  • Trigger Warning||

    That's not an orgy. That's a sausage party.

  • MaleMatters||

    Campus anti-male Salem witch-hunters = liberals.
    Liberals = Democrats.
    Democrats = this:

    "Republicans don't have near as big a woman problem as Democrats have a man problem." -Wall Street Journal
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ki.....1412900814

    And this:

    "The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls a historical record number of governors' mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday's election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans." http://www.vox.com/policy-and-.....ile-rubble

    And this:

    "The Democratic Party is viewed as more out of touch than either Trump or the party's political opponents. Two-thirds of Americans think the Democrats are out of touch — including nearly half of Democrats themselves. ...a large chunk of Democrats feel that their party is united in a vision … that's at odds with the concerns of the American public." -Washington Post
    https://archive.is/SAj6w

    Democrats should heed Humphrey Bogart's warning in "The African Queen":

    "Things are never so bad they can't be made worse."

  • CZmacure||

    Translation: "At first I was hoping Soave was the author so I could gripe about him, but when it wasn't, I decided to shoehorn a dig at him, anyway, cucumber Soave sucks, amirite guyz?"

    Seriously, the bitching about Soave is tiresome.

    My recent post: FlexSocial Review
    My recent post: Cash Beyond Words Review

  • Agnes||

    Why is it that now, having sex with any amount of alcohol in your system means you couldn't possibly have consented? If alcohol is really that dangerous and impairing, it should be entirely illegal. Or at least, to women. Perhaps they need to add new warning labels on all alcoholic beverages which say: 'Warning. Consuming alcohol as a woman will lead to your rape.' I wouldn't be surprised if the bar bathroom posters start trending with consent propaganda.

    In college, my friends and I looked forward to dressing slutty, drinking lots, and getting laid or making out on the dance floor. It's fun. And regretting having sex with someone doesn't mean you were taken advantage of, it means you made a bad choice and should consider not making that choice again.

    In the day and age when women are shouting: OWN YOUR TRUTH, GIRL, they sure as shit can't own anything which combines 'drinking and sex with male' in the same narrative. What has been created, are a bunch of dancing on the couch with their shoes on brats, and everyone keeps letting them.

  • Dillinger||

    orgies are fun; shame when they are the subject of litigation it gives them a bad rep.

  • swampwiz||

    What I wonder about is how in the world that the university can invoke any type of in loco parentis on students that are off-campus. However, I could see the university getting involved if something happened on campus.

  • NEET||

    Another reason why you should just stick to rubbing one off. Plus, you get cool magic when you hit 30 with your virginity intact.

  • p3orion||

    "[T]he judge stated that universities 'have the responsibility to conduct unbiased investigations...' "

    And therein lies the problem. Education majors are consistently shown to be at the lower end of the achievement scale; those who willingly gravitate into education administration would surely be the bottom of even that low group. And yet these idiots, and even students, are investigating and prosecuting accusations of major crimes. Why the hell has our government delegated such a critical and potentially life-shattering function to amateurs?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Schools shouldn't be conducting these hearings at all. Sexual assault is a crime. It should go to the police and regular courts.

  • Hank Phillips||

    If I were to teleport backward to 1968 San Francisco with hard copy of this discussion string, I doubt I could sell it as speculative fiction. Suspension of disbelief would, I'd wager, be an issue.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online