MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Misconduct Can’t Defend Himself—It Would ‘Impose Psychological Trauma’ on Accuser

John Doe says there's evidence his female accuser assaulted him. But a judge won't make her cooperate.

AmherstDavid EmmermanRemember Amherst College student "John Doe," who was expelled for sexual misconduct, even though he had good reason to believe that his accuser had actually assaulted him? A judge recently blocked Doe's attempt to subpoena his female accuser's text messages on grounds that re-litigating the matter "would impose emotional and psychological trauma" on her.

Consider the implications of this decision. According to Seattle District Judge James Robart, a student who believes Amherst violated his due process rights, wrongfully expelled him, and ignored subsequent evidence that his accuser, "Sandra Jones," was the actual violator of the college's sexual misconduct policies, does not deserve the opportunity to make his case because someone else's feelings are more important.

Whatever happened to believing the victim?

The incident in question took place years ago, during the late night / early morning hours of February 4-5, 2012. Jones was Doe's girlfriend's roommate at the time. Jones went to Doe's dorm room and sexual activity ensued: Jones performed oral sex on Doe.

But Doe was blackout drunk at the time—a detail that Amherst administrators deemed "credible," on subsequent review. Of course, it's questionable whether a blackout drunk student can actually provide the level of consent that Amherst's sexual misconduct policy requires.

Other factors cast doubt on the idea that Jones was the victim and Doe the perpetrator. After leaving Doe's dorm room, Jones texted another male student and asked him to come to her dorm room for sex. She also texted a residential advisor about her "stupid" decision to engage in sexual activity with her roommate's boyfriend. In these text messages, Jones admitted that she was "not an innocent bystander." She also complained about how long it was taking this second male student to do anything sexual with her. She did not file a complaint against Doe until two years later.

It's certainly possible that Jones was forced by Doe to give him oral sex without her consent, left the encounter with a fervent desire for another hookup, mischaracterized her own level of responsibility in a message to the RA, and didn't realize she had been sexually assaulted for another two years (after befriending a number of victims' advocates). It just doesn't seem like the most probable explanation for what happened. But, based on a preponderance of the evidence presented to Amherst administrators, Doe was expelled.

Keep in mind that administrators never reviewed the text messages, and when Doe asked the administration to re-open the case in light of this error, Amherst refused. Doe was given just seven days to appeal the finding of responsibility, but he didn't find out about the texts until months later.

Doe has filed suit against Amherst for mistreating him. He has not sued Jones, although maybe he should have. As part of his case against Amherst, Doe's legal team subpoenaed Jones to testify at the trial and turn over certain documents and records of statements she made about the alleged assault. Jones refused to cooperate.

And, according to Judge Robart's ruling, she doesn't have to:

An in-person deposition of boundless scope would impose a substantial burden on Ms. Jones. (Subpoena at 1; see also Resp. at 7 ("Until a deposition begins, it is very difficult to know where it will lead and impossible to predict all the topics that may be explored with a witness.").) The deposition would force Ms. Jones to relive a night in which she asserts Mr. Doe sexually assaulted her. (See, e.g., Clune Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 4; Resp. at 6-7.) It would also reraise the subsequent investigation, hearing, and period of publicity that Ms. Jones has endured. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. 5 at 11-12; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56.) It takes no leap of logic to reason that a live deposition would impose emotional and psychological trauma upon Ms. Jones.

Robart essentially argues that since Doe isn't suing Jones directly, he has no right to involve her in his case against Amherst. He also argues that Amherst is in possession of the relevant documents, and thus Jones's involvement is unnecessary. But, as KC Johnson explains, that isn't quite right:

Yet much of the requested material couldn't come from Amherst employees. For instance, a critical aspect of the accused student's case is the basic unfairness of an adjudication that went forward under the false premise that A.S. had not reduced anything about the incident to writing. So the subpoena asked A.S. for "all communications, including text messages or emails, between you and anyone else on February 5, 2012." The only conceivable source of this material would be A.S., not any Amherst employees.

Johnson notes that this decision might actually represent a setback for victims' rights organizations, since it incentivizes accused students to sue their accusers in addition to their colleges:

Ironically, whatever minor assistance the ruling might have to frustrating the Amherst student's quest for justice, the victory might be a Pyrrhic one for the accusers' rights movement as a whole. Judge Robart sent a message that the only way an accused student can obtain relevant evidence involving his accuser is—as a handful of accused students have done—to sue his accuser as well as the college. Expect more accusers to be added to future lawsuits as a result.

Johnson is a co-author of The Campus Rape Frenzy, a new book about the death of due process on college campuses. He calls the Amherst case "perhaps the most egregiously unfair" one he has covered. Who could disagree?

Photo Credit: David Emmerman

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.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Johnson is also blogging at Volokh this week: Monday, Tuesday.

  • Bill||

    Did you mean to say that Doe was black-out drunk?

  • Bubba Jones||

    All of these cases seem to have a common thread. Blackout drunk in a coed dorm.

  • Cyto||

    Coulda been worse. My suitemate in college got blackout drunk and passed out in his bed. We all woke up to a loud commotion about 4 am.

    It seems that his roomate decided it was time to make good on his fantasies and give him a hummer. So he woke up to his roomie's mouth on his junk. A beating ensued. Both guys moved out immediately. I think the powers that be were more upset about the battery - this was during the 'gay bashing' era, so it was termed that instead of "resisting sexual assault'.

    Anyway, the replacements were more interesting. That was the summer that my roommate and I were the only straight guys in a 4 room suite. 4 of the other 6 guys were taking hormones and spent countless hours practicing their tucks and trying to impress us with how campy they were. They were a really interesting group, if a bit sad sometimes. The desperation for attention was clearly born of some internal strife.

    I don't see how they stayed eligible though. Holy crap, those guys could party. I don't know how I made it through either, between them and my hyper-heterosexual roommate who spent the summer with the sock on the door handle most hours of the day and night.

  • John||

    If someone falsely accuses you of a crime, you should sue them. And if you have accused someone of a crime and are telling the truth, you should welcome the suit.

    Johnson acts like the act of an accused suing an accuser in civil court is a bad thing. I don't see how that is. You don't lose your right to bring tort actions merely because you have been accused of a crime.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    And if you have accused someone of a crime and are telling the truth, you should welcome the suit.

    This is what government lawyers actually believe.

  • John||

    This is what people with 9th grade educations call argument.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You don't have to argue very hard to convince people who aren't lawyers that they don't want to be sued.

  • tarran||

    And if you have accused someone of a crime and are telling the truth, you should welcome the suit.

    ^^^^ Someone who never has had to defend himself in a civil suit. ;)

  • John||

    It is never fun. But the reality is that if it is there are stakes involved with accusing people of serious crimes. You better have some proof. If you have proof they are not going to sue you. If you don't, then they might. And that is how life works.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It's an honor to be sued! A joy! A pleasure! Being sued is like frolicking through a dewy meadow on a sunny spring afternoon!

  • John||

    If the person committed a crime against you, you can counter claim for the crime they committed. And when you win and get paid, it is actually a pleasure.

    What is your point here? Do you think that people accused of crimes should have no recourse against their accusers even if the accuser is lying?

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It's like making sweet, gentle love while listening to the rhythmic pitter-patter of an April rain shower.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Yes, "no one welcomes being sued" translates directly as "people accused of crimes should have no recourse against their accuser even if the accuser is lying." Sad that you have more than a ninth grade education.

  • tarran||

    John, speaking for myself, and as the defendant in one of the more epic lawsuits clogging up the Middlesex County Probate Court, your line about welcoming being sued when the other party is in the wrong struck me as really, really clueless.

    It's not fun. You have the anxiety of coming up with tens of thousands of dollars to pay for the lawyer and discovery. You have the unpleasant experience of having to explain your actions. The terror of situations where there is no objective documentation, just your word against hers. No to mention the terror when she flat out lies and it looks like people are seeing it as truth. The constant tension of watching every step you take and communication you send for fear that you'll produce some excerpt or moment that can be twisted to paint you as a monster.

    And, on those rare moments where you are vindicated, for example in a deposition where she is confronted with evidence that she is lying out of her ass and she keeps changing her story to the point where even the court reporter's lips are twitching as the taps away at the stenograph, it's not an unalloyed happiness. It's not even a pleasant schadenfreude. The little happiness is drowned in misery and anger and disgust. And the hourly rate of $350.00 for a deposition makes that moment of vindication a very expensive moment.

    Most people don't welcome it. They survive it. They overcome it. They endure it.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Maybe the middle ground shouldn't have been encouraging Doe to sue Jones, then. I'm not qualified to comment on the judge's rationale, but at this point it seems like Amherst should be backed into a corner since they cannot prove Jones' claim and it looks like negligence on their part for not trying.

  • josh||

    If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear......except for the fear. And possibly the outcome.

  • Delius||

    "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear"

    Lord love a duck, my friend. I wish I still had your optimism.

  • Bob K||

    Yeah I remember my first subpoena. Just got home from the hospital with my dying mother and my wonderful ultra-christian holier then though uncle had a process server serve me at 10:30 pm. All I could think about the rest of the evening was how glorious it was. Hell I wasn't even the one being sued my other uncle had that privilege.

  • ||

    You don't lose your right to bring tort actions merely because you have been accused of a crime.

    No matter how much richer it would make the City of Chicago if it were true.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    If a woman falsely accuses a man of sexual assault, you should not try to sue them, because the judge and jury will rape you because men are evil and if you didn't actually assault her then you definitely assaulted another woman at some point.

    He can't even get access to the text messages to see if there is evidence in his favor.

    I'd like to see some mothers marching for their sons' rights just once.

  • commodious rebrands||

    I remember one second-wave feminist suddenly seeing the light when her snowflake was accused by a girl and hogtied by the college. She published an article, and that was probably the end of it.

  • MarkLastname||

    Most feminists go through life with this idea that their son and husband are the only good men, the rest are pigs. Once they divorce their husband, he's a pig too. And then they often seem more concerned that their sons treat the random women like princesses than with their sons' actual wellbeing. One of those women, after all, will bear her grandchildren, while her son is just the sperm donor.

    Women will never march in defense of men. It's contrary to human biology.

  • tommhan||

    This is a great characterization of our courts behavior towards men accused of crimes against women. I agree with the mother march too.

  • Ranter||

    " He calls the Amherst case "perhaps the most egregiously unfair" one he has covered. Who could disagree?"

    Uhhh, any one of the idiotic Title XI or "Accuser's Rights Only" jackoffs out there who are only too happy to witch-hunt anyone that's been accused of sexual impropriety.

    Proof doesn't matter, facts don't matter, all that matters is that people who claim to be victims of rape are protected from legality and the process of the justice system.

    2 Goddamn years to file that claim. Unbelievable.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Proof doesn't matter, facts don't matter, all that matters is that people who claim to be victims of rape are in the correct tribal grouping of the moment are protected from legality and the process of the justice system.


    That's applied to everything, across all areas of the legal system.

  • ||

    Title XI

    Title IX, turned up a couple notches.

    John really needs to get back on his unintentional but completely appropriate typo game!

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    But, this Title goes to eleven.

  • Nunya||

    Couldn't you just make X louder?

  • Virginian1969||

    You've tapped into something here, Sir!

    Yhs,

    Sir Dennis Eaton Hogg

  • ||

    "Accuser's Rights Only"

    That's generally the way it comes down, but the actual principal is Woman's Rights Only.

  • tommhan||

    Well we all know that females never lie, commit a crime or falsely accuse..............right?

  • cc2||

    People continue to claim that women never are the aggressors in domestic violence, also. sugar and spice and all that...

  • Rhywun||

    The only solution here is "Eunuch Day" during Freshman Orientation. Participation required.

  • ||

    Blackballing that.

  • ||

    [covers junk with one hand while narrowing gaze]

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    The ACLU is rolling in money now. I bet they take up this case.

  • ||

    Doubtful. They have made great strides to become the ACRU.

  • MarkLastname||

    The Asian Civir Riberties Union?

  • Nunya||

    ROR.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    That's fucking funny.

  • widget||

    Mrs. widget and I will be at odds over sending our spawn to a US college. This is not an argument I will likely win, alas. Even John Derbyshire sent his daughter to college.

  • ||

    There has to be someplace that is still relatively sane, and not a fundie nuthouse like Liberty University (Fallwell's place).

    Actually, this would seem to be a business opportunity - a conservative/libertarian non-religious school.

    Plenty of small struggling liberal arts colleges out there so you might even get a turnkey operation - at least wrt facilities and staff, you might have to replace most of the faculty.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Liberty University would have expelled John Doe too, for violating the rules on drinking and fornicating.

  • ||

    There's a Bastiat/Hayek-influenced university in Guatemala.

    Also, George Mason houses the Mercatus Center, so they can't be all bad.

  • MarkLastname||

    Pepperdine is a top notch uni and is fairly conservative by academic standards.

  • Number.6||

    Take a look at Hillsdale.

    Shortlisted for my Grade 10 spawn.

  • R C Dean||

    A judge recently blocked Doe's attempt to subpoena his female accuser's text messages

    This is why this crap has to be strangled in the cradle and rooted out of the universities. Because its spreading into the actual real legal system.

    It is unimaginable to me that this ruling was even made. But there it is. And flashing back to the kerfuffle over requiring corroborating evidence in he-said/she-said cases, is it really better that we ban evidence other than the accusation from these cases rather than require it? Because that's what this judge just did.

  • ||

    "This is why this crap has to be strangled in the cradle and rooted out of the universities. Because its spreading into the actual real legal system."

    And it has prepared ground, in all that runs under "rape shield law".

  • widget||

    Yeah, but it's just law. The same thing is happening in engineering and science. And accounting!

  • Hunthjof||

    It is coming to the military as well. Hence why you have politicos that want to take sexual assault cases to civilian courts. They know that some E-3 isn't going to stand a chance against politically minded DA's. The will plead out left and right. The politicos know that if they stay in the military system they will have something resembling fairness.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "He has not sued Jones, although maybe he should have."

    Cut your gentleman out and a disembowel it for crow food.

    Duty is dead.

    Social mores have razed the mental landscape of logic-based obligation and conceptualized ethics which fucking rejects the noxious Kantian malaise of submission to automated tradition and blank duty imposed from nebulous ether.

    He should have sued the goddamn flurry out of her.

  • SQRLSY One||

    If CIS-gendered He-Men can be punished (W/O and ability to defend themselves) for getting their wanker sucked on, while unconscious...

    The only recourse is for all CIS-men to have their wankers cut off!!!

    I am hereby opening up SQRLSY's dick-ectomy shop, deep discounts for CIS-men... Call 1-800-DIC-KECT...

  • SQRLSY One||

    NEED LEGAL ADVICE ASAP!!!

    Any lawyers out there? Free or discounted legal advice, please?

    Along with CIS-men's wankers, what other appendages are covered here? I mean, some people's kinkiness knows no bounds... Suck on your nipples, ears, fingers, toes, stumps of supposedly-removed members, skin folds, double chins, hemorrhoids, etc. …

    HOW MANY MEMBERS need to be ectomy-ified before CIS-men are truly safe?!?!?

  • MarkLastname||

    Yu mean before the world is truly safe from CIS MEN!!!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    If CIS-gendered He-Men can be punished (W/O and ability to defend themselves) for getting their wanker sucked on, while unconscious...

    Just stay away from women and let willing men do the hard work. It's not foolproof, but a lot less risky.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Johnson is a co-author of "The Campus Rape Frenzy, "

    I don't know how many times I've picked up that box at the video store but never rented it. I heard the camerawork was subpar but the money shots were well-done. I'm still dubious of Vivid's four stars and calling it James Deen's "Masterstroke".

  • GILMORE™||

    "...The best work we've yet seen in the "Rape Frenzy" series...."

  • Prof. Mondo||

    STEVE SMITH GIVE SIX STARS!

  • GILMORE™||

    Remember Amherst College student "John Doe"...?

    Do i? That guy is everywhere!

    Who could disagree?

    Catherine Lhamon? To be sure, her intentions are noble.

    Maybe this story needs a lawyer to parse the judge's reasoning.

  • BigW||

    Wow, I decided to play "spot the equivocation" with Robby's post and couldn't find any "well, but..." in there.

    Nicely done Robby....

  • Rasilio||

    I don't know this is pretty damn close...

    "It's certainly possible that Jones was forced by Doe to give him oral sex without her consent, left the encounter with a fervent desire for another hookup, mischaracterized her own level of responsibility in a message to the RA, and didn't realize she had been sexually assaulted for another two years (after befriending a number of victims' advocates). It just doesn't seem like the most probable explanation for what happened."

  • Zeb||

    Or it could be very dry sarcasm. Hard to say.

  • SugarFree||

    That's a reductio ad absurdum for rhetorical effect, not an equivocation.

  • AlexInCT||

    I bet you that to a prog it certainly was...

  • Rich||

    A judge recently blocked Doe's attempt to subpoena his female accuser's text messages on grounds that re-litigating the matter "would impose emotional and psychological trauma" on her.

    One supposes that Judge Robart is not being recalled because that "would impose emotional and psychological trauma" on him.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Something something horny teenager blackout drunk blowjobs regret blah blah fucking blah.

    Fucking STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- how do they work?

    Any aggrieved party who waits more than 48 hrs to file his or her charges should be told to go piss up a rope.

    "You're in college to learn. Consider this a lesson."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And, of course, we have this recurring theme:

    didn't realize she had been sexually assaulted for another two years (after befriending a number of victims' advocates)

    The "victims' advocates" are out there beating the bushes for examples of rape and assault, in order to justify their existence and inflate their budgets.

    "Like, this one night, we were drinking Southern Comfort and orange juice in this guy's room, and the next day, I had the most awful taste in my mouth."

    "Oh, honey, that boy totally mouth-raped you."

    It's like that stupid cunt at Rolling Stone; she had her story all ready to go, she just needed an "typical victim" so she could run find/replace with a real victim's name.

  • NoVaNick||

    As a dad of two boys, I will be very scared for them for them once they go off to college and it used to be that parents worried more about their daughters...Not sure how it will be 10-15 years from now, but if it is the same or worse, I will strongly encourage them to go to a community college or part time, then transfer into a better university if they so choose. 4 year residential colleges are trouble now, especially the elite ones. And I really don't think where you go to college has much to do with future success if you are truly intelligent and motivated.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    A college education, like a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, ain't what it used to be.

    It's god damned expensive, and with exceptions like engineering [as with all things, depending on the economy] and pre-med [leading to actual medical school and completing a worthwhile residency], is increasingly not worth the money spent on it.

    Sent one kid through college [for accounting, doing well in purchasing and procurement] and my second is not so motivated and is working full time and making a living; part of me would still like no 2 to get the sheepskin, but in light of the relative value and the bullshit described above, I'm not so sure any more.

  • Just Say'n||

    What the hell does this have to do with the executive order on refugees?

    I got a fever and the only cure is sixteen more hyperbolic articles about refugees!

  • Long Woodchippers||

    It's the same judge that slapped a TRO on the EO

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It doesn't excuse Jones's assault or Amherst's malfeasance, but maybe the solution here is, call me crazy, not to get blackout drunk?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It's like the Jimmy Buffet song, especially for that age group 18-22; "Let's get drunk, and screw."

  • Number 2||

    BLAMING THE VICTIM?!?!? AGAIN?!?!?!

  • Number 2||

    I am sick and tired of having to not get blackout drunk in order to prevent strange women from performing oral sex on me!

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I'm hoping that in the outrage regarding Trump's immigration policies, OCR is quietly destroyed. Surely the left can't scream about a violation of due process for immigrants while complaining about a restoration of due process on college campuses...right?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You are kidding, right? Do you honestly expect anything like consistency from that quarter?

  • MikeP2||

    Do not send your sons to blue-state liberal arts colleges, let alone a NE liberal arts school. That's just crazy.

    Dartmouth college alumni.....no well in hell am I letting my sons go to Dartmouth. It was bad years ago and it gets worse every year.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Hey, they've had both mandates [stick] and funding [carrot] from the Obama administration to pursue this agenda, so like most things with incentives they are just going along. Add to that the victim culture hungry for vengeance, and it's a pretty natural outcome.

    The only thing that will chance this trend, and bankrupt the agenda of the advocates, is loss of revenue [carrot] That and the shuttering of the Title IX OCR [stick].

  • Akira||

    "The only thing that will chance this trend, and bankrupt the agenda of the advocates, is loss of revenue [carrot] That and the shuttering of the Title IX OCR [stick]."

    I think once these SJW types start percolating through the workforce, employers will realize that a college degree is no longer a reliable way to gauge who is a decent worker. Degrees in some subjects are probably already seen as a negative (if someone has a women's studies major, a businessperson will see a candidate who has been steeped in grievance culture and anti-male polemic; such a person is almost guaranteed to be a walking lawsuit the moment she overhears a boob joke in the break room).

    The optimist in me says that employers will give up on college degrees and instead look for candidates with work experience and certifications from "boot camp"-style educational institutions (e.g. a short, intensive course where you just do the coursework and go home; no "student life" bullshit). Of course, that is entirely contingent on the government staying the fuck out of the way.

  • Grajek||

    If this person was "Blackout Drunk" they would not be able to remember the incident and therefore are in no danger of reliving the incident. Cannot "relive" something you cannot remember "living" in the first time through.

  • Careless||

    The boy was the one blackout drunk. So she sexually assault Ed him

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    and didn't realize she had been sexually assaulted for another two years (after befriending a number of victims' advocates)

    How fucking "traumatic" could it have been if some "victims' advocates" had to talk her into believing that she had been assaulted? If something bad is done to me I kinda remember it (and think about how the payback is gonna go).

  • Tionico||

    Simple solution: name HER as a codefendant in the suit against AMherst. Call her an accessory to the harm he was done by Amherst.

    iIt seems to be far beyond suspect that SHE waited for two years to decide SHE was the victim when it was she who went to his room (uninvited or invited, we've ot yet been told) and then ended up doing some pretty perverted things to him whilst "dead drunk". THEN solicited another male for further sexual exploits.

    She seems like some sort of real sweetheart..... NOTTTT!! We had a couple of names for females such as she...... most unfit to print in a public place like this. I'm certain most reading this can fill in the blanks.

  • gwallan||

    As I've been saying for years...in an act of sexual impropriety any woman involved will be treated as the default victim, even where they are the perpetrator.

  • Akira||

    OT (although related to college):

    I'm at a point in my life where I need to get a better degree. Being someone who loves to read about economic issues, I thought about an economics degree.

    Let's say I got a bachelor's degree in economics... What exactly can you do with this degree? What kind of private companies would hire you? Is it a degree that generally pays off, or is it a waste?

  • Number.6||

    Depends where that 'point in life' you are.

    My firm - financial sector - would look favorably on a mature candidate with a newly-minted economics degree from a good college, but all you'd be doing is buying our attention so we could read your resume with a little more interest.

    If your career background is already somewhat involved with business, if you've been doing that for 10 years, the experience is likely to be about as valuable as the diploma is.

    The career opportunities for economists qua economists are usually restricted to recognized academics.

  • Fairbanks||

    I have an economics degree. It was a long time ago so things have probably changed but.... it was an very useful degree in terms of personal growth: critical thinking (e.g. incremental analysis) understanding economic consequences of policy decisions, how businesses operate (or should). However, unless you want to teach economics or go into the public sphere I don't think it would be useful by itself. But it can be very useful if you want to do post-graduate work (law, business,etc.). I got an MBA afterward and in addition to schools looking favorably on the Econ degree it was really good background.

  • John McElroy||

    Kafka, anyone?

  • Ralph Gizzip||

    The dumbass's first mistake was going to Amherst.

    Note to all HS Junior and Senior males: Think long and hard about applying to Leftist hellholes of higher education. Indoctrination is primary, education is an afterthought.

  • JWatts||

    This article made The Drudge Report. Robby Soave will never be invited to another hip cocktail party again.

  • eamonkelly||

    A clear violation of one's right to due process if ever there was one.. Amherst better get their checkbook ready. Hello, SCOTUS.

  • Utilitarian||

    Is the ACLU going to help this student out? I doubt it.

  • Praveen R.||

    Don't rule it out. ACLU may be more proactive on liberal cases, but if this guy seeks them out, it will be interesting ot see what their response would be. I know a lot of liberals who don't support what these campus feminists make of faminism.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Have I heard this sort of bullshit before? What was that book by Joseph Heller?

  • Praveen R.||

    This is one of the more outrageous cases. I read about this last year and my anger at the college is still there. The dumbass campus feminists give feminists a really bad name and the mainstream feminist organizations need to get a clue and realize how such fringe groups in colleges give their entire movement a bad name and distance themselves from this insanity.

    Even the recent case where the transgendered "victim" who claimed that a single touch by her honorable boyfriend was sexual assault is not as outrageous as this one and I thought that story was pretty bad .

  • G A||

    This is ridiculousness. It is 2017, women have been fighting for equal rights and they have them until they get caught on their BS, then they get to cry about their emotions. Women are some of the biggest criers of wolf in the world. When I was in high school my friend got accused of rape for refusing to have sex with a girl, just because she was mad and jealous she got turned down, and a whole group of us witnessed them go into a room and less than a minute later them walking out fully clothed. Now some defenders will say "you can be raped in under a minute" I say not when she was the one all over him and claimed he forced her to get naked. Too many times Men are victimized yet women are protected with no proof. College needs to start educating and stop manipulating these children into thinking every man i trying to rape them and giving them immunity just off a claim.

  • Dr. Jim||

    Where is the great ACLU to defend them, on the grounds that you must be able to face your accuser or get it dismissed? Where is the presumption of innocence? Where are the great Christian or libertarian defense groups also? Does nobody care about defending legal principles anymore?

  • proud stories||

    One stop solution to find history of companies, products and also the biographies of famous people all at one place.
    quotes by famous people

  • raji reddy||

    nice blog.thanks for sharing with us for financial services in hyderabad click.
    Personal Loans in Hyderabad

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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