MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Exchanging Dirty Jokes Is Now a 'Sexual Relationship' at George Washington University

Fired chemistry professor is suing the school.

Tetra Images Tetra Images/NewscomTetra Images Tetra Images/NewscomLongtime professor Catherine Woytowicz is suing George Washington University (GWU) for how it handled a sexual harassment complaint against her. The complaint against Woytowicz was found to be without merit, but the school nonetheless dropped Woytowicz as an adjunct assistant professor—another casualty of the convoluted, secretive, and often unfair harassment proceedings that have overtaken U.S. schools.

For 17 years, Woytowicz taught part-time at the university, presiding over more than 65 courses in its chemistry and international relations departments while working full-time elsewhere. By myriad accounts, "Dr. Cat" was a compelling and effective instructor, winning accolades from her students and awards from the school.

But Woytowicz's good standing with the university started crumbling in January 2016, when one of her former students accused her of sexual harassment. The student, labeled John Doe in court proceedings, had taken chemistry courses with Woytowicz in 2015. During this time, he claimed, Woytowicz "overtly pursued a sexual relationship with him and threatened academic and professional consequences if he did not comply," according to GWU's motion to dismiss her lawsuit.

Ultimately, "there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of sexual harassment against her," the motion states. But the school's Title IX coordinator—the administrator charged with enforcing the federal rule that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education—"determined that Doe had consented to a relationship with Woytowicz," the motion claims.

Woytowicz maintains that she "has never had, or tried to have, a sexual relationship" with any of her students. She is seeking damages from GWU for violating her constitutional rights to free speech, free association, and due process; violating her right to a employment environment free of sex discrimination; conspiracy to deprive her of constitutionally guaranteed rights; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A 'Nebulous Fog' of Allegations

Rory Muhammad, Title IX coordinator at GWU, was tasked with investigating Doe's complaint against Woytowicz. In March 2016, Muhammad emailed Woytowicz to say she was under investigation for alleged violations of the school's "Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures."

As is typical of Title IX proceedings, the email provided Woytowicz little information about the allegations against her, according to her suit. It offered nothing on the specific nature of the allegations, or when and where they supposedly occurred. Little more insight could be gleaned from a subsequent meeting with Muhammad: Though it lasted more than two and a half hours, Woytowicz says the explanations offered were a "nebulous fog."

When Woytowicz asked whether she should retain a lawyer, Muhammad allegedly welcomed to do so but told her that if she did, it would bar any possibility of informal resolution of the student's complaint and compel GWU to get its own lawyers involved.

While providing little detail about the accusations, Muhammad allegedly peppered Woytowicz with "invasive questions about her personal life and sexual relationships," her lawsuit states. Throughout the meeting "Muhammad seemed to be gloating," and at the end

he became loud, hostile, and accusatory. While Prof. Woytowicz was headed out the door, Defendant Muhammad continued shouting questions at her about sex with an adult, who was not a student [at GWU] and had never been a student of the University. Defendant Muhammad asked if Prof. Woytowicz had had sex with this person, and she responded that she had not. Defendant Muhammad asked if Prof. Woytowicz had wanted a "three-way" with this person, and she responded that she did not....Defendant Muhammad never explained his fascination with trying to get Prof. Woytowicz to say she had had sex, or even an unusual desire about sex, concerning an adult nonstudent.

The school claimed to have "hundreds" of texts between Woytowicz and Doe, but she wasn't allowed to see or be read these texts directly during the meeting. Later, Muhammad would email a list of "phrases, paraphrases, and purported quotations assertedly from text messages" between Woytowicz and Doe, which were said to corroborate "frequency of communication, late hours of communication, meetings, multiple requests to see [the student complainant] or talk to [him], restaurants and drinks," talking about "emotional feelings," and "some texts [that] could be interpreted as sexual innuendo."

Of the 18 purported quotations, "at least some" are "false," asserts Woytowicz's suit. While it was not uncommon for her to communicate with students, including Doe, via text, the list provided included "fragments of communications to which [Muhammad] invented context that would make them seem improper," "cherry-picked words or phrases to suggest something was meant sexually, and ignored the context showing they either had no such meaning or were ambiguous," it says.

Mentoring or Harassment?

As part of her lawsuit against against GWU—filed in D.C. Superior Court but moved by the school to federal court—Woytowicz provided copies of dozens of emails sent by former students from 2014 to 2016. They suggest a professor who was willing to put in extra effort to help young people succeed: meeting them one on one to discuss med-school applications or internship opportunities, organizing women's networking events for female chemistry students, taking her classes out for pizza at the end of each semester. Contact with some former students extended years beyond their time in her classroom.

The messages also show Woytowicz engaging in the same sorts of conduct that GWU deemed suspicious in the context of Doe: arranging meetings with current and former students in non-office locales, such as coffee shops; meeting with students during weekend or evening hours (a necessity because of her full-time non-academic work, Woytowicz says); inviting students to cultural or artistic events; inviting students to networking and end-of-semester parties where alcohol was present; offering to meet with current and former students one on one to help with studies or scholarship applications.

After her initial contact with GWU's Title IX office, Woytowicz attempted to provide context for her communications with Doe in a 74-page response, submitted through her lawyer in May 2016. The response, and Woytowicz's lawsuit, maintain that it was ordinary professorial behavior which GWU read sinister motives into after a malicious student slung unfounded accusations at her. (The suit also mentions—but never further elaborates on—another component of this response: "Evidence of the student complainant's motive for bringing a false complaint, to wit, his admitted interest in 'mindfucking' her the same way Iago did to Othello and his showing her a sophomoric book on that subject titled 'Mindfucking.'")

Woytowicz suggests that school authorities inferred improprieties where there were none, that they took the complaint at face value immediately and then went fishing for evidence to support it, that they never gave Woytowicz a chance to properly defend herself, that they made too much of ribald humor, that they were motivated by "Victorian" or "fundamentalist" views of women, and that they imposed a sexist standard on Woytowicz that was not applied to male professors.

This last bit is a stretch. Anyone who has followed Title IX inquiries at GWU or elsewhere knows that they can be hopelessly flawed and biased against their targets regardless of gender. If anything, wrongly accused men seem to have it worse.

But Woytowicz is absolutely correct that those accused of sexual misconduct in Title IX territory are often presumed guilty by administrators from the get go, that they're rarely afforded anything like the due process required in courts of law, and that the result can be biased against the accused. And she's right that the cautious propriety required under Title IX proceedings does cast suspicion on all sorts of once-typical student/professor camaraderie.

Redefining 'Sexual Relationship'

The root of the injustice here may lie in how Title IX compliance has perverted the normal process for resolving situations like these. The decision to bar Woytowicz from further teaching may have come directly from the heads of the departments she taught in, but Woytowicz was never able to mount a proper defense to them directly—to offer witnesses on her behalf, to offer her own textual record. Even the 74-page response she had submitted rebutting the Title IX Office's presumptions about her texts was ignored, as it had been emailed by her lawyer and not by her directly. The department heads received the same "nebulous fog" of accusations against Woytowicz as she did, filtered through the topsy-turvy lens of Title IX culture.

In September 2016, Muhammad emailed Woytowicz to say that his review was complete and that he hadn't found sufficient evidence to support the student's complaint of sexual harassment. There was evidence, he claimed, that violated the school's consensual relationship policy by having a sexual relationship with Doe.

Muhammad had not found evidence that Woytowicz and Doe had actually engaged in sex or other physical activity of an erotic or romantic nature. The "sexual relationship" he had discovered consisted of sexually tinged jokes and discussions of sexual themes.

Rather than pursue that investigation further, Muhammad was willing to agree to an "informal resolution" proposed by the chemistry department: Woytowicz would accept a written reprimand for the relationship and undergo anti-sexual-harassment training. Woytowicz rejected this proposal, her lawyer explained, because it "would require her to submit to a written reprimand for conduct of which she knows she is innocent."

Woytowicz offered to provide additional witnesses and to take a polygraph test. In February 2017, she submitted an affidavit from Doe's former roommate stating that he regularly saw Doe interact with Woytowicz during this period but "never [saw] anything indicating to me that there was a sexual relationship" between them, and that from what he "could see of their relationship, it seemed inconsistent with there having been a sexual relationship between them."

In March 2017, Christopher Alan Bracey, a vice provost and law professor at GWU, informed Woytowicz that his review of her case was complete and he had "decided not to initiate a formal hearing" against her.

Meanwhile, new instructors were appointed to Woytowicz's usual courses for the upcoming semester.

The School Responds

In its motion to dismiss Woytowicz's complaint, the school maintains that many of the things Woytowicz characterized as ordinary professorial interactions are in fact problematic. It also introduces a range of other alleged activity that Woytowicz did not mention in her complaint. If these things are true, it's more understandable why the university may have wanted to sever ties with Woytowicz.

GWU accuses Woytowicz of exchanging "salacious and suggestive" text messages with Doe, in which she "seemed to delight in writing double entendres to her student about the size and shape of the male organ and about oral and anal sex." (No quotes from or copies of these exchanges are provided.) The university claims that Woytowicz "provided [Doe] with alcoholic beverages even though she would have known he was not old enough to consume them legally" and that "on at least one occasion, she bit Doe on the neck."

Woytowicz is also accused of having "a sexual encounter at Doe's apartment with Doe's friend" (who was not a GWU student) and "allow[ing] herself to be photographed [with the friend] in a warm embrace."

"The University could not allow a professor to conduct herself with undergraduate students in this way," states the GWU motion. "Something had to be done."

But because Title IX inquiries operate in some nebulous land between the U.S. legal system and corporate HR departments, it's hard to know how much weight to give the above statements. It's unclear on what, if any, evidence the university has for these allegations, or how Woytowicz might counter them if she were given a chance to defend herself against them. The school also fails to state when the alleged activity occurred—a crucial detail, considering that Doe's contact with Woytowicz extended after he was in her class.

Or maybe not: The university's motion says that "the consensual sexual relationship provision" of GWU policy is actually "irrelevant for purposes of this motion." It doesn't matter, the school says, if Woytowicz never strictly violated its policies on sexual harassment, consensual relationships, or anything else. GWU is a private employer, Woytowicz was an adjunct professor, and the heads of the chemistry and international relations departments can stop assigning courses to her as they see fit, no particular violation required.

The Constitution "simply [does] not apply to private actors such as the University and its employees," GWU added. That's certainly true. But to the extent that federal policy is responsible for the school's behavior, Woytowicz has a strong case that her constitutional rights have been crushed, even if George Washington isn't the entity that trampled them.

Photo Credit: Tetra Images Tetra Images/Newscom

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.

  • ||

    "Rory Muhammad, Title IX coordinator at GWU"

    I don't like the sound of that.

    /stares into camera.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Wonder if he works with Billy Ray Ahmadinejad...

  • ||

    "While Prof. Woytowicz was headed out the door, [Roary Muhammad] continued shouting questions at her about sex with an adult"

    I think it sounds pretty good.

  • Tionico||

    so WHO was sexually harrassing WHOM?

  • Longtobefree||

    Absolutely no chance of a fundamentalist mindset there - - - -

  • Mannie||

    My thoughts exactly.

  • ||

    "the list provided included "fragments of communications to which [Muhammad] invented context that would make them seem improper," "cherry-picked words or phrases to suggest something was meant sexually, and ignored the context showing they either had no such meaning or were ambiguous," it says."

    Now that kind of thing affects her too.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Old boy needs to lay off the underwater woodchipper repair forums it seems...

  • BambiB||

    Wait. ... "#METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!" #METOO!"

    #METOO!"
    #METOO!"
    #METOO!"

  • EscherEnigma||

    So a private employer learns that a part-time employee has a history of behaving in ways the private employer feels are inappropriate and reflect poorly on the private employer, and fires/refuses to renew the part-time employee.

    ... I'm confused on what I'm supposed to be upset about here.

  • BYODB||

    I would agree. Personally if an institution doesn't want to hire Jews there shouldn't be a problem with that, right? ^_-

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    The cheek of this comment makes this goy go oy.

    And also double down on my military aid to Israel position.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    If that position is to cut off a terrorist apartheid state, I certainly agree.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That is what y'all have repeatedly told me, yes.

  • BYODB||

    Well, I did say that I agreed!

  • ||

    "But to the extent that federal policy is responsible for the school's behavior, Woytowicz has a strong case that her constitutional rights have been crushed, even if George Washington isn't the entity that trampled them."

    Whatever that extent is. I haven't seen this invoked when guys got stampeded over. By the way, it is the inversion of a private entity using the state as henchman,

  • EscherEnigma||

    So are you and ENB arguing that without Title IX GWU wouldn't investigate claims of professor misconduct? 'cause she wasn't fired under Title IX. She was fired because, in the process of the investigation that exonerated her, the school learned about her misconduct.

    So unless y'all are seriously saying that Title IX is the only reason the school investigates such claims, federal policy isn't responsible for anything.

  • ||

    I do share that impression: "The root of the injustice here may lie in how Title IX compliance has perverted the normal process for resolving situations like these."

  • ||

    So unless y'all are seriously saying that Title IX is the only reason the school investigates such claims, federal policy isn't responsible for anything.

    If federal policy isn't responsible for anything, then why is there a federal policy at all?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Snarky answer: politicians have to do something with their time, don't they?

    Non-snarky answer: Context dude. Yes, Federal policy often does something. But in this context, it's only responsible for the woman being fired if you can successfully argue that the university only investigates misconduct allegations because of it. If they would investigate misconduct allegations anyway, then the presence or absence of Title IX is irrelevant.

  • ||

    Contex

    The context is that "Rory Muhammad, Title IX coordinator at GWU, was tasked with investigating Doe's complaint against Woytowicz". The investigation was started specifically in the context of Title IX.

    that the university only investigates misconduct allegations because of [Title IX]

    This investigation was started specifically due to the existence of Title IX regulation. It is possible that the university would have started a misconduct investigation in the absence of Title IX regulation; but the existence of a possibility (or even probability) of an event isn't proof of that that particular event would have happened.

    If they would investigate misconduct allegations anyway

    If.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You want to argue that the only reason universities investigate allegations of misconduct is Title IX? Be my guest.

    All you'll be doing is arguing that Title IX is needed.

  • ||

    You want to argue that the only reason universities investigate allegations of misconduct is Title IX?

    I don't have to argue that. The existence of Title IX regulation and the fact that this particular investigation was started "in the context" of Title IX is sufficient proof that federal policy is responsible for something.

  • Brandybuck||

    Employer can refuse to renew a contract with an employee at any time. But LYING about the reasons why crosses a line. Engaging in a petty star trial at the behest and strong suggestion of the government not only crosses that line, but exceeds it by several hundred feet. And firing an employee for the accusation of having sex with a a non-employee consenting adult is just plain boorish.

    Mr. Muhammad shouldn't go to jail, but he should be fired with no cause given. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Stories like this serve to inform the parents of the students that they guy they are paying a salary to is fucking tool and needs to be standing in line at the unemployment office.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    You heartless racist!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    [a] fucking tool and needs to be standing in line at the unemployment office.

    That could describe 99.99999999999% of all university bureaucrats (and government bureaucrats too).

  • Brandybuck||

    I agree that 99.99999999999% of all university and government bureaucrats who engage in this sort of petty behavior need to be standing in the unemployment line.

  • BYODB||

    And private entity bureaucrats that only have a job because of government regulation...

    ...even though that would mean I would get fired.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Then send him back where he came from? Then he can practice Sharia law to his heart's content.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Exchanging Dirty Jokes Is Now a 'Sexual Relationship' at George Washington University

    Q: Why was the guitar teacher fired?

    A: For fingering a minor.

    **Adds notch to belt.**

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Sir, we found what we presume to be the killer's ejaculate in the eye socket of the victim...

    Guess they didn't see that coming...

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Private university. If you were terminated for something you did not do, or something not listed in your contract, sue for breach of contract. The end.

    Public University (i.e.the government)...completely different. You get due process under the law and the university doesn't get to make policy more restrictive than the law.

  • ||

    Private university using government funds.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Then it's not private.

  • Malvolio||

    So you think there is only private university IN THE WORLD?

  • Longtobefree||

    So which term do you apply to a university directly chartered by the congress of the United States?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Public

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If they're subject to the structures of title ix, then the private moniker is irrelevant. And the professor been subject to something called George Washington University sexual harassment and allocation guidelines then I would totally agree.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Fuck autocorrect.

    Achieve been subject to the George Washington University sexual harassment guidelines...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Fuck... you get the idea.

  • Anomalous||

    You shouldn't ever feel unsafe at your safety school.

  • ||

    Defendant Muhammad asked if Prof. Woytowicz had wanted a "three-way" with this person, and she responded that she did not....Defendant Muhammad never explained his fascination with trying to get Prof. Woytowicz to say she had had sex, or even an unusual desire about sex, concerning an adult nonstudent.

    Without photographic evidence of Prof. Woytowicz's existence as well as any other members of the proposed three-way, I'm going to have to reserve judgement about Defendant Muhammad's alleged 'fascination' with the hypothetical situation.

  • Billy Bones||

    "The Constitution "simply [does] not apply to private actors such as the University and its employees," GWU added. That's certainly true."

    IMHO, if the Constitution does not apply at GWU, then neither do the Title IX mandates. Either the university is a government actor that can have directives mandated to it by the government, or they are a private actor in which the government may only mandate through legislation. The university has every right to fire anyone it desires for cause, but if that "cause" is directed from the government, the Constitution should protect said actors.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Feed at the government trough, get heartburn!

    If you take Fedgovs money, you play by Fedgov's rules. So until GWU is willing to go full Hillsdale, they can STFU and bend over.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Cool story.

    So all those charter schools have to drop the religious bullshit, eh?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    They would lose literally all of their faculty in the sciences if they did that. And their quality of student would go right in the shitter. They would be essentially be destroying themselves.

    As other libertarians have written extensively -- you can't play by free market rules all by yourself in a non-free market world. You do business the way business is being done, and you strive to change things in the meantime. And in the meantime, we can't adopt the theoretical view that you shouldn't take the federal government's money -- that leads others to think that libertarians are out of touch and only operate on theoretical terms.

    For example, just because a libertarian may think that roads should be privatized, it doesn't mean that he should refuse to take ground transportation until they are.

  • Longtobefree||

    This institution was directly chartered by the congress of the United States. They can't get anymore federal than that!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This last bit is a stretch. Anyone who has followed Title IX inquiries at GWU or elsewhere knows that they can be hopelessly flawed and biased against their targets regardless of gender. If anything, wrongly accused men seem to have it worse.

    Seems like the Title IX mandate is broad enough to allow inquisitors to make of individual cases anything they want.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Inquisitorial Oppression, the forefather of Proseuctorial Discretion.

  • ||

    "that they were motivated by "Victorian" or "fundamentalist" views of women, and that they imposed a sexist standard on Woytowicz that was not applied to male professors."

    This kind of delusion (I think it doesn't even work as a legal pro-forma claim) may partially explain how she got into trouble,

  • Cloudbuster||

    If exchanging dirty jokes is a sexual relationship, turns out I'm pansexual!

    I can haz victim status now?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Witch hunts don't end until a bunch of innocent people get hurt and eventually, enough of the wrong sort of people get accused. Like a virus that requires a fever to purge it, this is part of the process.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution "simply [does] not apply to private actors such as the University and its employees," GWU added. That's certainly true. But to the extent that federal policy is responsible for the school's behavior, Woytowicz has a strong case that her constitutional rights have been crushed, even if George Washington isn't the entity that trampled them.
    Unfortunately for GWU, the federal student loans that fuel the orgy of left academia are given out by politicians who are under limitations of the Constitution.

    That and the left made their bed with Title IX and now they are reaping the downside of vague laws that venture away from Due Process.

  • Longtobefree||

    From the mission statement of GWU:
    The University values a dynamic, student-focused community stimulated by cultural and intellectual diversity and built upon a foundation of integrity, creativity, and openness to the exploration of new ideas.

    I look in vain for the openness and the integrity, but I find considerable creativity in the alleged 'process' employed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So nothing about education.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, I did only copy the part related to the article. The rest of the fluff would require me to write an article, and I am retired.

  • Lenny Spruce||

    In response to this lawsuit, George Washington University created a new class. It's called Intercourse. All you have to do is come.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I identify as john Doe

  • ArLyne Diamond, Ph.D.||

    The Good, the bad and the ugly - all part of the movement to stamp out sexual abuse in the workplace, schoolroom and elsewhere. The good: Women (and some men) who have been abused are coming forward - this makes it easier for others to come forward, in particular young vulnerable women who would have been afraid in the past. The climate will change from "boys will be boys" to a more polite and respectful atmosphere.
    The bad: we seem to be on a witch hunt - calling even the most minor statements abuse - treating a dirty joke almost the same way as we do an accusation of bullying demands for sexual favors and even rape. We must look at the continuum and respond accordingly.
    The ugly: Now accusing someone of having been sexually inappropriate in the past can be a weapon to ruin their careers. It is now a political weapon being used to destroy those of "the other" political party.

    Working with management, I am helping create these distinctions so we react appropriately. I've just completed my book on Conducting Workplace Investigations - talking about how to understand and reduce bias when doing an investigation.

    Brava to the women coming forward legitimately. They are making it safer for others in the future. BUT, let's not damage people for making stupid and/or off-color remarks. Let's just teach them to stop.

  • ||

    The climate will change from "boys will be boys" to a more polite and respectful atmosphere.

    Yeah, women never disrespect anyone. Here's Matt Lauer's replacement respecting men.

    "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything." - G. K. Chesterton

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's entirely consistent with our punitive culture. When people look for solutions to problems, they think about jail and blacklisting first. It pervades our culture and is reflected in one of the most punitive governments in the history of the world (e.g. a government that incarcerates its citizenry at an historic high level).

  • JuanQPublic||

    Indeed. That's how things are dealt with in the U.S. The scorched-earth approach. Which incidentally isn't effective in most cases, routinely violates people's rights, and is a perfect political tool for re-election.

    So it's net effect is negative in most cases, which should bring focus back onto those who are creating and enforcing such awful policy. Instead, they double-down on bad policy.

  • Dussoubs||

    Until the politicians fix the witch hunt that is Title IX, politicians and their celebrity and media allies should continue to be subject to the headhunting they have acquiesced in.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Yeah but how can we decide her guilt or innocence without some full length pics?

  • Ralph Gizzip||

    Well, if GWU is a private university they won't object if all of their Federal funding dries up.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Receiving federal funding (directly or indirectly) is not a good reason to support injecting the whims of politicians into otherwise private actors. If it was, then virtually every large business in the country would be under full control of the US government. Does anyone here who identifies with libertarianism think that's a good idea?

  • markm23||

    GWU has a collection of top-notch legal experts in it's law school. Did it consult with any of them about this kangaroo court? And what does GWU's endorsement of such proceedings do to the value of their law degrees?

    That Congress charted GWU long ago doesn't make it public. Congress also chartered some for-profit corporations back before the courts decided how to allow a corporation to be a party to lawsuits and incorporation became a routine procedure. But accepting public money makes it at least quasi-public, and I suspect that like most colleges it not only accepts federal student grants and loans for tuition, but helps students apply for them. It has an Office of Title IX compliance to see that these funds don't get cut off - and, like such offices in many other universities, that office apparently adopted a policy of biased investigations that do not allow the defendant an effective defense after the DOE sent out that letter.

    The real defendants in this lawsuit should be from the DOE. For that matter, those that endorsed this letter were either practicing law without a license, or should have had their license pulled years ago for (take your choice) rank incompetence or deliberately flouting the law.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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