MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Female Drake U. Student Initiates Sex with Incapacitated Male, Lies About Key Details. Guess Who Got Expelled?

University wouldn't let male fraternity brother file a Title IX complaint against his accuser, because of "retaliation."

DrakePicture Des MoinesThere are fundamental deprivations of justice, and then there's what happened to a male student at Drake University. The student, "John Doe," was expelled for sexual misconduct—ostensibly because he engaged in nonconsensual sex with a female student, "Jane Doe."

In truth, John was punished for failing to realize quickly enough that he was actually the victim in the encounter. Drake officials still refuse to fix their mistakes.

During the course of Drake's sexual misconduct investigation, administrators uncovered several pieces of evidence that made John's claim to victim status arguably stronger than Jane's: Jane had initiated the encounter, by her own admission, and wasn't nearly as intoxicated as John. (It's also possible that she initiated at least one other nonconsensual sexual encounter later that night.)

But Drake refused to act upon this new information, even when John's father—a trustee at Drake—explicitly requested an investigation into Jane's misconduct toward John. Such a request would constitute retaliation against Jane for coming forward in the first place, according to university officials, and was thus illegal under Title IX, the federal law interpreted by the Education Department to require the kinds of kangaroo courts now in use at campuses across the country.

That's all according to John's lawsuit against Drake. His father, Tom Rossley, is also suing the university. Rossley was dismissed from the Board of Trustees after attempting to draw attention to his son's plight. His suit alleges that Drake's board improperly fired him. (Read more about the details of that suit here, courtesy of The College Fix.)

A key aspect of both suits is John's disability status: he is described as having a learning disability, and was prescribed two drugs to help him concentrate on homework. He was under the influence of both drugs—and tremendous amounts of alcohol—during the encounter with Jane.

The suit alleges that in failing to make accommodations for John during the Title IX process, Drake violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's an interesting claim, but other details of the lawsuit paint Drake officials as so hostile to John's plain-old due process rights that the ADA aspect seems almost secondary.

On the night in question—October 8, 2015—John and Jane met up well after midnight, at Drake's Bakery. Both had been at house parties. John had already consumed a huge amount of beer, multiple shots of whiskey, and Red Bull, according to the lawsuit.

Jane allegedly told university officials that she was also intoxicated, although subsequent investigation suggests she exaggerated her level of drunkenness. She claimed that she tripped on the sidewalk, stumbled over, and fell, though a witness refuted this. She also claimed a bartender served her a drink in between the house party and meeting up with John. But the bartender said that never happened.

"Upon information and belief, this testimony by Jane Doe was made in an effort to appear more incapacitated than she was that evening," according to John's lawsuit.

John and Jane began flirting—Jane "was all over me and was biting my ear," according to John—and decided to leave together. In the backseat of the car taking them home, they began making out. Jane—not John, but Jane—instructed the driver to take them both back to John's fraternity house.

When they arrived at the house, it was so crowded that they ended up heading to John's car to be alone. It was there that Jane initiated oral sex. Notably, John passed in and out of consciousness as it was happening:

As he testified, John Doe was so intoxicated that he only remembered bits and pieces of the oral sex; he stated he was blacked out for large portions of their time in the parked car, and he did not remember giving consent for the oral sex performed on him by Jane Doe. In fact, John Doe did not remember the oral sex performed on him in the parked car until he returned to the car the next morning looking for his debit card which he discovered had fallen out of his pocket.

In the eventual hearing, Jane Doe admitted to initiating the oral sex on John Doe without his consent. Further, she defined "consent" to be when she initiated the sexual activity. She also stated during the hearing that she felt she was "just giving him what [she thought] he wanted."

(Emphasis mine.)

This encounter soon came to an end—John was too incapacitated to maintain an erection—and the pair ventured into the house. At this point, their accounts are hazy, confused, and contradictory. John remembered passing out in his bed and Jane telling him she was leaving. Jane remembered collapsing into a bean bag chair and waking up to discover John on top of her, wearing a condom. Her pants were pulled down. She claimed she told him to stop, he did, and she left. (Whether this actually happened is in serious dispute.)

But Jane did not go straight home. She went to another fraternity house, uninvited, and climbed into bed with an unsuspecting person. She "jumped on top of him," and he told her to leave, according to the lawsuit.

She then headed to a different bedroom, removed her shirt, and initiated oral sex on a third person. She spent the night there, and went home in the morning:

John Doe sent Jane Doe a text at 3:00 a.m. to ask if she got home safely, and she responded in the affirmative and added "all good, babe." In fact, she did not go home but was instead at the annex of the fraternity house across the street engaged in sexual activity with a fraternity member.

Who Jane sleeps with is her own business, of course. But these two other encounters are relevant, given that they establish a pattern of behavior. It certainly seems like Jane has a penchant for initiating sexual contact under circumstances that a Title IX officer might label nonconsensual.

The very next day, after piecing together the events of the previous night, Jane and a friend went to the public safety office to report John for sexual assault. She also went to the hospital to obtain a sexual assault examination, but left before any of the tests could be performed. Jane later stated that she doubted herself, asking questions like, "What am I doing?" and "What if I did consent?"

The Title IX investigation included all the familiar, horrifyingly unfair elements typical of these cases. Two officials, Mary Howell Sirna and Tricia McKinney, were tasked with handling the investigation. They decided which witnesses to interview, and—according to John—failed to interview people whose testimony would have helped John.

At the actual hearing, an administrator "did not allow testimony from anyone who was with Jane Doe after she left John Doe's room on the night of the alleged incident," even though these individuals could have testified to Jane's lack of alcohol-induced incapacity.

The evidence presented by the investigators to the hearing panel consisted solely of investigators' recollections of their conversations with witnesses—no transcripts, audio, or video tapes. This proved to be a problem. John, for instance, claims he told the investigator that he woke up in the morning fully clothed and with his shoes on (casting doubt on Jane's assertions about having sex in the bean bag chair). But this detail did not appear in the report that was presented to the hearing panel. Investigator Sirna reportedly said she couldn't recall John making such a claim during their interview. Because the interview was not recorded or transcribed, there was no way to tell who was right.

Incredibly, John's state of incapacitation was held against him. "Given that… respondent claims not to recall the event, we then must turn to the evidence provided by the Complainant," wrote the investigators.

The university also took Jane's side in other ways. When officials learned that John was bringing a lawyer to the hearing, they strongly advised Jane to do so as well. Acting Dean of Students Jerry Parker personally arranged for Jane to have a lawyer, forwarded all relevant legal documents to this lawyer, and even offered to talk to the lawyer on background about Jane's case. He did all of this, despite maintaining that the university was a neutral arbiter in the matter of Jane vs. John.

But the most novel aspect of this case is the retaliation claim. Throughout the process, John became aware of the fact that he could not have consented to sex with Jane, and was therefore a victim of sexual assault. He pressed administrators to investigate this claim. They steadfastly refused to do so, on the grounds that John was retaliating against Jane.

Consider the logic of such a verdict. It suggests that in any sexual misconduct dispute, the first person to make a formal accusation has a tremendous advantage. The first accuser gains the advantage of retaliation, which prohibits university officials from properly vetting the second accuser's claims, according to Drake officials.

Despite Jane's numerous factual misstatements, and her testimony that she had initiated nonconsensual oral sex with John, John was expelled. His suit against Drake alleges breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional stress, and discrimination on the basis of sex. His lawyer is Andrew Miltenberg, who also represents Grant Neal—the Colorado State University-Pueblo student expelled for sexual assault even though his girlfriend said, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped"—and several other college students who were mistreated by the Title IX process.

One final note: Everything that the feminist-left claims universities do to re-traumatize sexual assault victims—blaming them, disbelieving them, failing to act on their claims—happened at Drake, but it happened to a male fraternity member. Why is that okay?

Photo Credit: Picture Des Moines

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.

  • sarcasmic||

    Officials never admit to making mistakes. If they did then they would ruin their image of infallibility and then people wouldn't trust them anymore. Because we all know that people who never admit to being wrong, especially when they are wrong, are more trustworthy than people who admit and fix their mistakes.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    It's not faith in themselves they're worried about damaging, it's faith in their bureaucratic institutions which cannot be sacrificed.

    Any one of them would gladly take the blame for nearly anything if they thought it would protect the bureaucracy -- after all, the bureaucracy ensures they'd never suffer consequences anyway, so what do they care?

    No, this is about perpetuating the infallibility of the SYSTEM. Admitting that there are parts of the system which need to be fixed is to admit that the system isn't perfect, which is to sow distrust, which can lead to ugly things like questions and demands for accountability. And nobody wants that.

  • SQRLSY One||

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

    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-already-removed members, skin folds, double chins, hemorrhoids, etc. …

    HOW MANY MEMBERS neect to be ectomy-ified before CIS-men are safe from these kinds of charges?!?!?

  • masculistman||

    How about men standing up for themselves and fighting back. How about contacting the Secretary of Education,Betsy Devos: betsy.devos@ed.gov,and letting her know this is unacceptable. She has made financial contributions to FIRE: https://www.thefire.org/ so she may be sympathetic to the plight of men. If you do nothing nothing changes.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Thanks for the email address, I just emailed her with a link to this article...

  • JoshBon||

    I think that the problem is different and that all these Title IX cases are not mistakes, but one more deliberate attempt by feminists to discriminate against men, ruin their lives, and get paid for that

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Yeah, but look at the way he was dressed. He was just asking for it.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    It's not just the way he was dressed, he was an unaccompanied male of marriageable age so he was practically inviting what happened.

    Had his mother, or an aunt, or even an older sister been with him at all times, this Jane Doe would have behaved like the respectful and respectable young lady she no doubt normally is. But John's wanton flouting of the rules of normalcy and decency was akin to a huge neon sign with the message "I'm Easy!" What can we expect Jane, or any other red-blooded young woman, to have done?

    Another step in the right direction would be for him, and all post-pubertal males, to don a veil and other garments to maintain their modesty whenever they are outside the home. It's just common sense to do so. Exposing the hair, or baring the arms, and even worse - legs --, is virtually the same as parading around naked begging for sex with any passerby.

    Women and girls, when they are overcome with lust, are not to blame for their own actions when a man is practically flouting his body in their faces. Let's lay the blame where it belongs!

    -- How's that? Did I do it right from an SWJ's viewpoint?

  • MichaelL||

    Excellent!

  • James Phieffer||

    (dropping to my knees before your comment) ***We're not worthy! We're not worthy...! ***

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Disputes That Shouldn't Happen

  • WakaWaka||

    Seems like she's using her 'victim hood' status to detract from her loose standards. I know it's not PC to say this, but any guy who was in a fraternity or just went to college knows that a lot of twenty-something year-old girls don't like to accept responsibility for their actions and playing the victim is always a way out for them.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    I know it's not PC to say this

    You are so edgy.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    a lot of twenty-something year-old girls females of all ages don't like to accept responsibility for their actions and playing the victim is always a way out for them.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It's true - all women are the same.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    And men love to accept responsibility for their actions.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Sure -- Trump accepted responsibility for winning, Hillary accepted responsibility for losing.

    See? It's easy!

  • ||

    Actually, she blamed it on Russia.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    She could see them rig the election from her house.

  • Brian Epps||

    Cosi fan tutte?

  • SomeGuy||

    I honestly have to agree. Our culture has breed this social standard that woman can get away with murder. One of the major reasons i hate woman and their hypocrisy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    a lot of twenty-something year-old girls don't like to accept responsibility for their actions and playing the victim is always a way out for them.

    A lot of 20 something men aren't much better as far as accepting responsibility for their fuck-ups. The difference is men don't get a permanent victim card to play unless they're a certified member of a protected class somewhere on the Progressive Stack.

  • SomeGuy||

    Very true! I think this is why people skew and think woman take less responsibility because they actually get away with it vs men usually get the banhammer.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Anyone have Jane's number?

  • ||

    Why, so you can be 3rd in line for a sloppy drunken blowjob and then accused of rape the next morning?

    You should have higher standards for your sluts, Chipper. I believe in you.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    You're right. I don't want them until I'm 5th in line.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Anyone not have Jane's number?

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    John was too incapacitated to maintain an erection

    All that mind reading takes a toll.

  • sarcasmic||

  • damikesc||

    True.

    Maybe she just gave really shitty blowjobs.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Is there such a thing?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Fortunately for him he is disabled.

    Ask anyone defending this to swap the genitals in the story and see if they come to the same conclusion.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Haha yeah man you got 'em!

  • damikesc||

    Fuck, kid had it coming. Being male and all. No crime against men is bad enough for DanO.

    Dude is probably a pussy for suing.

  • SomeGuy||

    was he also white or black? If so double fucked. If Asian or Indian or Muslim he might get a pass.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    It sounds like his family has money. We should execute him.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Why is that okay?

    Because those penis parties gotta go. Hey-hey, ho-ho.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    What's interesting is that filing a sexual assault accusation seems to be becoming a standard part of the morning-after regret reaction by college females.

  • ||

    Sounds like Tittle Retard is a do-over for sluts. Sorta like Confession for Catholics. Hey steal a candy bar and feel guilty. Go to Confession and be absolved!

  • ||

    Filing charges would be the penance; File 3 assault charge and do two cycles of acyclovir and all your sins will be absolved! Go in Peace.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Where does carrying around the mattress you were "raped" on come in?

  • ||

    That mattress has just got to be soiled by now.

  • ||

    You mean the parallels of the Procession To Calvary aren't obvious? Jesus Christ do I have to lay out a trail of palm fronds for you? Emma carried the mattress so that, through her, all crazies can be redeemed.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Nailed to a cross, nailed on a mattress; same thing.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Her hands were raped by a penis?

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Sorta like a rosary.

  • Billy Bones||

    As I have said before, we have gone from "The Walk of Shame" to "The Walk of Blame".

  • SIV||

    Jane's a real skank.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    A gamecock would never betray you like that.

  • ||

    Hold up there, you victim blamer. Jane is a strong, independent womxn!

  • Brandybuck||

    Kids of the male variety, here's what you need to know about college: The girls will ruin your life. That is their goal. And the system is on their side. This isn't high school any more where the girls just have a snit and won't talk to you, they will now try to destroy your life. By entering college you have entered into an adversarial relationship with the opposite sex. And it's a cage match with no rules.

    The girls earn points for destroying boy's lives. Back in the seventies getting an abortion was a sacred rite of passage for them. Today it's getting "assaulted". Does that sound harsh? If it were actual rape then the girls would go to the police. But they don't, the go the college Social Justice Center and the Title IX Automat.

    DON'T JOIN A FRATERNITY! DON'T GO TO ANY FRATERNITY PARTIES! DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL!

    Hell, don't even live on campus if you can help it. No dorms, no college housing, get a regular apartment. Commute in to school from your parents if you have to.

    DON'T DATE A COLLEGE FEMALE! It helps if you are gay. But don't pretend to be gay, that just attracts the girls. Try not bathing, or being a nerd, or a libertarian. Anything to keep the girls away. If you need sex, head downtown and pay for it. Or date a high school dropout. Or an older woman out of college. Or just use your damned hands!

    Hell, just don't go to college. It's not safe.

  • Radioactive||

    And never stick your dick into crazy...

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    The hot crazy matrix should be required learning. In high school.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I get that a lot, but feminine craziness is like video game reviews: It's going to be at least 7 out of 10.

    *purchases ticket, gets molested by TSA, boards handbasket*

  • Cynical Asshole||

    And it's a cage match with no rules.

    I thought there was one rule:

    Don't have a penis.

  • ||

    Told my nephew, who sends me texts about the SJW madness he sees, to never ever never date one of those girls or even befriend them. They will ruin him; especially since he's socially awkward. The positive is the flakes and quacks make it easier to find real women. That was my advice to him.

  • ||

    They could just go to a tech school, guaranteed they won't meet many women there.

    Because patriarchy!

  • damikesc||

    Hell, if they're into gender studies, social work, anthropology, etc --- don't date them AFTER college, either. The risk is just not worth it.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Oh, you can date a college female, you've just got to make sure she's not American. You sign up to be a conversational partner/tutor with international students who are learning English, and you only date from that pool. You get much more attractive, fashionable, and feminine women who are not nasal-voiced, whiny, angry, fat, ruddy-faced battleaxes with no impulse control.

    Depending on where they're from, they might find their hard-drinking, slatternly, viciously unstable American sisters just as disgusting as you do.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The collegiate system may be against you, but once you have some sark lawyer and are in real world court the tales turn. This kid and his dad are probably going to end up with a seven figure settlement.

    I seriously need to go back to college so I can get a slice of that fat money cake.

  • Rich||

    Oh, FFS!

    It's obviously the fault of the university for not turning a fire hose on these clowns.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It suggests that in any sexual misconduct dispute, the first person to make a formal accusation has a tremendous advantage.

    Nah. If he had been the one to make the first complaint, they would have no problem with her counter-complaint.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But Drake refused to act upon this new information, even when John's father—a trustee at Drake—explicitly requested an investigation into Jane's misconduct toward John.

    That's really surprising. Usually if dad or mom is a trustee or big time donor a student can almost get away with murder. I guess that doesn't apply to Title IX witch hunts.

    Everything that the feminist-left claims universities do to re-traumatize sexual assault victims—blaming them, disbelieving them, failing to act on their claims—happened at Drake, but it happened to a male fraternity member. Why is that okay?

    Because... penis?

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    The only thing that justified the feminist left's actions more than the "male" part is the "fraternity member" part

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'm waiting for a class action suit against the Department of Eucation, the National Oranization (for the deification of) Women, amd every Women's Studies program in the country. The way things are going, it should win on its merits, though of course it wouldn't be decided on that basis.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    Mr. Soave, if these stories are found to be true -- i.e. outright discrimination against and double standards applied toward male (and it appears mostly heterosexual) college students -- then why not report them to larger national print and media outlets? Write a real investigative piece, present a list of facts and make a name for yourself. Have you tried?

    Unfortunately the only way justice gets applied to these stories is to gin up the outrage against individuals and universities who appear to be exploiting outdated sex and gender norms -- i.e. women = sexual victims, men = sexual victimizers -- while abusing the Title IX statute beyond the point of absurdity.

    Identity blogs can continue to write about these stories but they won't gain any traction until these issues are brought before the national stage.

  • ||

    Are you saying that Reason's not real news?

  • Jeep's Blues||

    To be clear, it's entirely plausible I wasn't saying that. ;)

  • Microaggressor||

    Have you ever seen Reason show up in Google News?

    I haven't, but I have seen Salon. See, real news.

  • mpercy||

    You mean, like Rolling Stone?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    In the beginning was the narrative, and the narrative was with god, and the narrative was god.

    And the narrative is that women are victims, and men are perps. And often perverts. And no matter the facts of the case, they deserve whatever punishment can be meted out to them. Because they are men, and as such are inherently fallible, just as women are invariably victims.

    And because patriarchy is the source of all evil, and the root of any disagreement with the narrative.

    So it shall be, for now and for evermore.

    In the name of Title IX and to hell with due process, amen.

  • The Last American Hero||

    It's Salem Witch Trials all over again. And just like in those times, the madness doesn't end until the wrong sorts of people get accused.

    Time for some dude to go on a date with Sasha or Malia and file a Title IX complaint.

  • lafe.long||

    That's all according to John's lawsuit against Drake. His father, Tom Rossley

    Um... Did you just out John "Doe"?

  • ||

    Looks that way....

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Wait. Wait. Wait. Are you saying John is gay?

  • GILMORE™||

    Despite covering 100s of examples like the above, the strongest statement ever made by the author on "what to do" re: the DoE's conversion of campuses in Kafkaesque feminist-star-chambers.... is to *revise OCR guidance*

    not, "Defund OCR"
    or, "just get rid of OCR",
    or least of all (gasp!) Repeal Title IX

    the 'libertarian' view here is apparently not that we need to take power away from "rogue federal agencies"....

    ... its that we merely need 'kinder, gentler' overlords.

    Meanwhile, plenty of other smart people have spared themselves the endless public-hand-wringing about the side-effects of shitty policy ... and simply said 'Repeal The @($*() Thing'

    And its not even a very complex argument. Given that women are already a majority of students + graduates of US colleges, there's little substance to the claim that they're facing any institutional disadvantage. That case was also made well before the law was vastly expanded into the realm of 'sexual misconduct'.

    Maybe its time to quit writing re-runs of the same story if you aren't serious about fixing the problem.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    "Maybe its time to quit writing re-runs of the same story if you aren't serious about fixing the problem."

    Exactamente.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Now I'll relate this little bit
    That happens more than I'd like to admit
    Late at night she knocks on my door
    She's drunk again and looking to score


    Now I know I should say "No"
    But that's kind of hard when she's ready to go
    I may be dumb but I'm not a dweeb
    I'm just a sucker with no self esteem
  • Rich||

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    The updated verse to that song would have to include getting kicked out of the colleges by the same chick that keeps attending the same school as you.

    But chicks can't be stalkers. Only CIS males can be such shitlords.

  • Eric Bana||

    It was there that Jane initiated oral sex.

    When will men learn that NO means NO!

  • Number 2||

    "But Drake refused to act upon this new information, even when John's father—a trustee at Drake—explicitly requested an investigation into Jane's misconduct toward John. Such a request would constitute retaliation against Jane for coming forward in the first place, according to university officials, and was thus illegal under Title IX"

    Sweet Jesus! It is not retaliation if you have a legitimate claim to raise!

    This is what happens when we let stupid, brainless bureaucrats grapple with concepts of law that they do not understand and have no business trying to grapple with.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    But they have the "narrative," and that is a far far greater concept than any stupid law or silly due process!

    Justice must be done, and where the courts have failed to imprison any man accused [because there wasn't enough to convict him] the universities [whose staff are very smart, you know] are going to make this right, and fix society in the process.

    That's why it's called "social justice,"

  • DCR1||

    And the beat goes on and on and on and...

  • josh||

    It takes a special kind of stupid to fuck things up this badly. It's almost as if administrators and politicians that allow this sort of thing to happen should be arrested for sexually assaulting due process.

  • DarrenM||

    but it happened to a male fraternity member. Why is that okay?

    It sounds like you just answered your own question.

  • Dhecker||

    This is the most typical scenario, I suspect, in the "wave" of campus sexual assaults. Two people who know each other have too much to drink and have sex. The woman then regrets the encounter, for whatever reason. She can accuse the guy of assault because she was (supposedly, but not in this case) too intoxicated to give effective consent. But if he was equally or more intoxicated, he also was incapable of giving effective consent. Why isn't she kicked out of school too? Gender discrimination, that's why.

  • ||

    Any complaint a female makes is taken as Gospel and can never be refuted. Why Reason wasted all that ink with evidence is a waste of time.

  • MaleMatters||

    Yep, iit's part of the war on men that liberals, campus feminists, and college administrators wage to portray women as always under siege by the "oppressive patriarchy."

    Campus men ought to consider wearing a T-shirt that says in letters big enough to read at 50 feet, "All campus females, do not come within 50 feet of me."

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    As bad as this case is, there is a worse one coming. Some day in the not too distant future there is going to be a case of on campus-rape where the University Administration's flagrant violation of the accused's civil and legal rights will result in a CLEARLY GUILTY sonofabitch not going to jail, because the case against him is irretrievably tainted. As bad as the treatment of all these poor innocent slobs has been (and the administrations of their various colleges and universities should be slow broiled on national television), the real reason that this MUST STOP, is that it creates an atmosphere in which an evil scumbag could attack and rape some girl, knowing that the investigation would be so bungled by the college that no trial could possibly convict him.

  • ||

    Isn't this exactly what happened, except with genders reversed?

  • Seamus||

    Probably not at Bob Jones University. Yet.

  • Mauser||

    "John was too incapacitated to maintain an erection"

    Ol Whiskey Dick got the best of John.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Hell with Title IX and nonsensical college investigations. Charge her criminally, arrest her, toss her in jail, put her on trial, convict her and make her a lifelong registered sex offender. It's time to go nuclear.

  • MaleMatters||

    Campus feminists = liberals
    Liberals = Democrats
    Democrats = this:

    "Republicans don't have near as big a woman problem as Democrats have a man problem." Wall Street Journal https://archive.is/yIuWx

    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 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

    I'm pretty sure that liberals' war on men, which is overshadowed by liberals' and the liberal media's loud drumbeat about "the war on women," will help make things even worse for Democrats come 2018.

  • sgreffenius||

    Whoever initiates proceedings is going to win. That's how it works in academics.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The multimillion do,at lawsuit the Rossleys are filing against the university is ultimately the only thing that matters.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    She then headed to a different bedroom, removed her shirt, and initiated oral sex on a third person.

    I prefer when we used to deal with this sort of behavior through ostracism instead of Title IX complaints.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    She probably just wanted to lure them both together. So she could get spitroasted. Or maybe she wanted a DP. Possibly even DPP, or double anal.

  • Mannie||

    I guess the moslems are right. A woman cannot be trusted to be alone in society without a male relative to mind her. They must be kept locked away in the harem, and only allowed outside if their entire bodies are concealed.

    You've come a long way, baby.

  • WarrenPeese||

    On the night in question, Jane was a slut.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Jane you ignorant slut....."

  • John McElroy||

    Did I happen into "the Onion" site?

  • Seamus||

    "Consider the logic of such a verdict. It suggests that in any sexual misconduct dispute, the first person to make a formal accusation has a tremendous advantage."

    Only if the first to file is female.

  • Bob Meyer||

    If John had a signed, notarized document from Jane stating that fellating John was the culmination of all of her sexual desires there's a good chance that John would still have been expelled.

    The problem isn't non-consentual sex, it's sex itself. By modern feminist standards all penetration is a form of expressing male dominance. No "real" woman would voluntarily give a blow job to any man since oral penetration is an even more dominant form of rape than vaginal or anal penetration. The very fact that she fellated him was proof of rape.

    Modern feminists make the Puritans seem like wildly copulating libertines.

  • jbsnc||

    Fair and balanced rule by the University. We should all be proud.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Female Male Drake U. Student Initiates Sex with Incapacitated Male Female

    Wherever identity politics rears it's ugly head, it's always instructive to switch the identities around and see how the statements play.

    Is there any doubt such a bland headline would have provoked paroxysms of rage about rape apology, rape culture, and misogyny if the genitals had been swapped?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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