MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Chicago Expelled a Male Student 4 Days Before Graduation Because His Ex Made a Dubious Sexual Violence Claim

He's suing the university—and the accuser.

ChicagoRdsmith4 / Wikimedia CommonsA former student who was expelled for sexual misconduct just four days before graduating is suing the University of Chicago for allegedly violating his due process rights.

He has also sued his accuser—his ex-girlfriend—which is a rare step for those seeking justice in such cases. Most lawsuits born of shoddy campus sexual misconduct adjudication solely target the institution.

That the accused student, "John Doe," has chosen to sue his accuser, "Jane Roe," is indicative of the serious, malicious actions he ascribes to her. According to Doe's lawsuit, their relationship was entirely consensual, and Roe did not dispute that. After they broke up, they continued to have sex, and those encounters were all consensual as well. Roe did not allege wrongdoing until her friends—to whom she had trash-talked Doe, and promised to stop seeing her ex—discovered she was still sleeping with him. She then claimed Doe had engaged in nonconsensual sex with her after she had passed out.

"UC expelled [John Doe] despite overwhelming evidence that Jane Roe fabricated her story because she was too embarrassed to admit to her friends at UC that she was engaged in a secret sexual relationship with her ex-boyfriend," wrote Doe's lawyers in his lawsuit.

Obviously, the lawsuit only represents one side of the story, and presents the facts in a light most favorable to Doe. There appears to have been an extremely messy break-up and subsequent friends-with-benefits period; no doubt there is some blame to go around.

But a panel of university officials litigated their relationship and found Roe blameless for what had transpired. Doe actually filed a counterclaim accusing Roe of misconduct and violence. Officials scoffed at this and cleared Roe, according to the lawsuit.

Doe was not so lucky. In fact, he was expelled—even though one of his witnesses, a friend of Roe's, had told the university that the friend had spoken with Roe for an hour via FaceTime immediately before the encounter. This witness, "CG," said Roe did not seem too drunk to consent, and in fact bragged that she and Doe were about to have "angry sex," just before the call ended.

Again, these are all details from the lawsuit, though they directly quote from statements and text messages in the university's investigatory file. The full lawsuit is here.

To summarize the back story, according to the lawsuit: Doe has claimed that he and Roe began dating during the fall 2017 semester. She spent so much time at his place that his roommates asked her to help pay for utilities. "For the most part, we had a good relationship—he was nice to me, we enjoyed each [other's] company, and I was happy," Roe wrote, according to the lawsuit.

That came to an end during winter break, when Doe accompanied Roe on a family trip to Costa Rica. During an argument, Roe punched Doe in the face and scratched him, and Doe spit at Roe. This caused them to break up.

When classes resumed, they continued to have sex, despite some persistent hurt feelings. Roe did not think her friends would approve of her continuing to sleep with Doe, so she misled them about what was going on. Roe texted a friend from her hometown, "KH," the following:

We both talked shit to our friends and they'd all be pissed if they knew we went back to each other in any capacity

So now idk where to go from here

I might just use him for sex when I want it and have no emotional connection

Roe subsequently misled KH as well, telling this friend that she was not having sex with Doe when she actually was.

"Like I don't want you to feel hurt or betrayed or anything but like I promise you that I'm not going back to him ever," Roe texted KH. "He's not my go to it's always you."

KH replied: "I really don't want u to go back to him or even be friends with him and if u do its really going to hurt me because things went back to normal and I'm closer to you than I ever was and I don't want you to be ruined again."

Roe took elaborate steps to deceive her friends: She changed Doe's name in her phone so it wouldn't look like he was sending her messages, and she turned off location services on her phone so they wouldn't know she was heading to his apartment.

That all these sexual encounters were consensual is not disputed. "I will say once again that each time we had sex post-relationship was consensual," Roe later told the investigators.

The only exception was a March 9 encounter. Doe invited Roe over to his place after a party that involved drinking. Well after 1:00 a.m., Roe posted Snapchat videos of herself in Doe's apartment. Around 3:00 a.m., Roe began facetiming with a friend, "CG." According to the lawsuit:

CG stated that Jane Roe facetimed her from Plaintiff's bed at around 3 a.m., Plaintiff and Jane Roe were wearing minimal clothing and the three of them talked for about an hour. CG said that "by all appearances, everything seemed consensual." Jane Roe "was able to participate fully and communicated clearly in the conversation." Jane Roe "was not incapacitated." After an hour, Jane Roe told CG that it was time for her to go and "angry fuck" with the Plaintiff.

Doe alleges that Roe's late-night Snapchat videos from his apartment effectively exposed her dishonesty to her friends. She then claimed that she had been too drunk to remember what was happening, and any sex between them was nonconsensual. A month later, she filed a complaint with the associate dean of students.

The ensuing investigation was unfair to Doe, he claims. He was not initially made aware of the charges against him; he did not know, for instance, which aspects of their relationship Roe had cited as evidence of wrongdoing. His hearing was scheduled for May 31—in the middle of final exams—and he was not informed of Roe's specific allegations until May 17.

Investigators compiled a report that consisted of interviews with 26 witnesses (including KH and CG). But the only people to testify at the hearing were Doe and Roe. They did so separately: The university did not allow cross-examination, and it did not permit lawyers to be present. The lawsuit describes the hearing as wildly prejudiced against Doe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, officials found him responsible for having done things Roe never even alleged in any formal capacity, including that he was responsible for some bruises on her body. (One witness, "MS," testified that Roe had once fallen through a glass table, and she had posted a picture of her injury on social media with the caption, "My RA's just expressed concern for me after seeing my super bruised legs and I had to explain to them that I just fell through a glass table and am not, in fact, being abused.")

The university concluded that Doe had engaged in nonconsensual sex with Roe, as well as "coercive behavior," including "shaming," "name-calling," and "repeatedly asking for sex after being told no." His punishment was immediate expulsion, four days before he was scheduled to graduate. His appeal was denied. He also lost the job he had been promised after graduation, as it was contingent upon finishing his degree. He became depressed and suicidal.

The lawsuit accuses the university of breach of contract and abridgment of due process. It also contends that Roe defamed Doe and portrayed him in a false light.

I would certainly like to hear her side of the story. It could be the case that there was good reason for the university to reach a guilty verdict, and that the process was fairer than it seems. But it's difficult to square Roe's texts and calls to friends with what she alleged, at least according to the lawsuit.

One final note: The story was actually covered by the student newspaper, The Chicago Maroon. The author of that article—a sorority sister of Roe's, according to a disclaimer at the end—interviewed Roe, who said:

After the relationship ended, she said, she realized his behavior had been abusive.

"A lot of people have this idea that an abusive relationship is—you're throwing punches at the other person. But there's a lot more to it. You can have emotional abuse, verbal abuse," she said.

She said that attending a Panhellenic Council workshop—a film screening and discussion on relationship violence—was "eye-opening," confirming for her that she had been involved in an abusive relationship. Realizing this, she resolved to "move on" and put the experience behind her.

Doe told the newspaper, "I did not do this. I swear to that with every ounce of my being."

Even Roe thought the expulsion was a harsh outcome, she told The Maroon.

"To go through four full years of college, and to have paid for all of it, and get nothing for it, is a terrible thing to have happen," she said, while adding that "this all could have been avoided had he not behaved the way he did and made the decisions he made, and he is the only person to blame for him being expelled."

Photo Credit: Rdsmith4 / Wikimedia Commons

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.

  • BigT||

    Verbal abuse - like an argument? IMHO this would entail weeks of constant haranguing. As with so many relationship 'crimes', easy to allege, hard to prove.

  • Cyto||

    If you are going to declare "emotionally abusive" relationships as criminal behavior, we have definite problems.

    Particularly if we are going to stipulate that men are the emotional abusers as a foundational fact undergirding the dispensation of justice as we have with every other aspect of sexuality.

    In my experience (and from the research I've seen), emotional combat is the woman's area of expertise. Also, my opinion - not based on any scientific research, is that men are generally not bright enough to fully participate in this arena.

  • DiegoF||

    It's absolutely embarrassing, the gap in intelligence between the sexes on this. We're barely even playing the same game.

  • Juice||

    Nah, just not emotional enough.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "men are generally not bright enough to fully participate in this arena."

    That's why they are so effective! Women do all the suffering because they are the only ones playing the game.

  • Agammamon||

    A strange game.

    The only winning move is not to play.

  • JeffreyL||

    You made my day. The 80's are calling today.

  • BambiB||

    MGTOW

  • BambiB||

    I think it's time to introduce a new rule to the "game".

    When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone has made a knowingly false accusation of a crime, that person must be sentenced to the MAXIMUM penalty to which the person falsely accused might have been sentenced if convicted.

    So if a woman makes a knowingly false accusation of rape, and the potential penalty for the accused is 5-30 years and fines up to $100,000, the woman gets an automatic 30 year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine.

  • Anomalous||

    Totally agree.

  • MoreFreedom||

    The problem with this, is that when someone is accused of a crime they actually did, but prosecutors are unable to prove (either in court or because they chose to not prosecute, e.g. in a he said vs. she said situation), then the victim could get punished twice, depending upon the standard to which they are held.

    Criminal trials have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction, while civil trials have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard that is lower. If an accused is found innocent in a criminal trial that doesn't mean they didn't do it. I'll agree with you, provided the false accuser is found to have falsely accused someone beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the state's failure to prosecute the accused isn't a reason to assume the accuser is lying.

  • James Pollock||

    "If you are going to declare 'emotionally abusive' relationships as criminal behavior"

    Nobody has declared "emotionally abusive" relationships to be criminal. There's no criminal law element in this story... it's all civil law. (which means, among other things, a lower burden of proof.)

  • Bill||

    Not even civil law. Just a panel of professors and administrators making
    it up as they go along with a set of rules biased in advance against the
    accused.

  • James Pollock||

    "Not even civil law."

    Yes, it's civil law. Specifically, it's colleges and universities complying with civil law that requires them to provide equal educational opportunities students regardless of gender, combined (often) with basic principles of premises liability because the university provides housing.

    This DOES NOT MEAN that they have to provide proceedings similar to equivalent criminal law proceedings, because they aren't providing for criminal penalties. If you do something that pisses off your landlord, they don't have to hold a trial before they decide to kick you out. Thinking you might have done it, or even that you might do it later, is enough.

  • jdgalt1||

    If landlords were tax-funded and therefore subject to federal regulations that said they had to hold kangaroo-court hearings (and not offer better due process) such as colleges do after a tenant is accused of sexual misconduct, then they would be in violation of the accused tenant's constitutional rights. Even though the landlord is not government, because the government forces the hearing to be conducted the way it is, the accused's right to due process is good against that hearing, and whoever acts as the "judge" and the "prosecutor" are potentially liable, both civilly and criminally.

    So it needs to be for colleges as well.

  • James Pollock||

    "they would be in violation of the accused tenant's constitutional rights."

    I don't see any rights for tenants in the Constitution. Are we reading the same document?

  • MoreFreedom||

    It's colleges and universities complying with federal government rules whereby the Dept. of Education interpreted federal laws the government passed, and threatened to withhold federal funding unless they followed the biased rules. This is administrative law, not common law. And I'm not enough of a lawyer to say whether it's criminal or civil law.

    One huge problem, is that it makes colleges and universities judges. If a crime has been committed, such as rape which applies here, then the police and government should be handling it, not the university. The university is certainly free to expel students who are convicted of crimes.

    In this case, I hope the university loses a lot of money, and the false accuser does as well. People will inflict a lot of harm on others to avoid harm for which they are responsible, which shouldn't happen if we want a just world.

  • ||

    "Not even civil law. Just a panel of professors and administrators making
    it up as they go along with a set of rules biased in advance against the
    accused."

    Yeah, this. The punishment is withholding of the credentialed degree and termination of the accused's relationship with the university, which in any other business would be absurd because he already fully paid (probably a shit-load of) money for the degree. Even if he actually assaulted her, that still doesn't change the fact that his butt was in the seat for 4 years, and he supposedly learned what he was there to learn. But somehow in our society, college is a winner-take-all scenario.

    I don't know what is the bigger tragedy, that the University knows this and uses it as a weapon to further its own misguided social justice agenda? Or that the University's paying customers know this and don't take their business elsewhere?

    If it were me, I would invest in suing the University to either grant the degree, or try to get a settlement with a non-disclosure order imposed on the university somehow that stipulates that they are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone else, and then take my transcripts somewhere else to finish.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    None of it makes any sense. Why are universities deciding on cases of rape? Rape is a horrible crime and should be prosecuted in a criminal court, not by a bunch of egghead professors. It should be against the law for universities to hold these types of civil proceedings. It's a matter for state law, not academic best guesses.

  • James Pollock||

    "Why are universities deciding on cases of rape? Rape is a horrible crime and should be prosecuted in a criminal court, not by a bunch of egghead professors."

    The same reason anyone else decides on cases of rape... because everyone gets to decide if they want to associate with rapists (or accused rapists). If you think your pervy-lookin' neighbor is checking out your daughter the wrong way, you don't have to invite him to your backyard barbeque. You don't want rapists (or possible rapists) hanging out in your backyard, you get to tell them to get lost.

    Title IX imposes a civil duty on colleges to provide equal educational opportunity for students regardless of gender. In the olden times, a college student might be raped by someone who lived in the same building (run by the college). Living in the same building, eating in the same mess hall, with a person who raped you... that might affect your educational achievement, right? So colleges have an affirmative duty to make sure that it doesn't... which means moving the accused to different housing, whether or not the state pursues a rape charge that moves the accused to state custody a year or two later (it takes time to investigate, charge, and try the defendant, even if all those things even happen, which they didn't.)

    THAT'S why the college takes an interest.

  • BambiB||

    None of which is even remotely relevant to this case.

  • James Pollock||

    Go back to the woods, Bambi, and ask Flower or Thumper to explain it for you.

  • posmoo||

    "Title IX imposes a civil duty on colleges to provide equal educational opportunity for students regardless of gender. In the olden times"

    there never was any differential treatment for sexual crimes based on sex that existed in the past and benefited males. the field was shifted to favor the female even before this. it's just become even more tilted in their favor. you are fucking moron or disingenuous if you actually believe this hysteria is a correction for something.

  • James Pollock||

    I'm not anti-male. I'm anti-raping. If you think that makes me against YOU, maybe stop raping.

  • khm001||

    Your comment is ridiculous. The college takes an interest because it has usurped authority it shouldn't have. If you want to kick someone out of your college because you don't like them, refund their money. This is clearly a case of greedy overbearing bureaucrats taking money, then acting dishonorably.

  • Trifrozion||

    When I see stories like this that show the lack of fair hearing by universities on sexual matters, I think that robot prostitutes can't get here fast enough. Of course that will just open the floodgates of robosexual rights.

  • Cyto||

    In the real justice system, police, prosecutors and judges are almost entirely protected from the consequences of their actions. So if they act with bias or even in bad faith, they are almost always immune from personal responsibility.

    But with these college cases, there is no such shield, as far as I know. One would think that this fact would put an end to this practice in fairly short order. If more "defendants" in these campus kangaroo courts actually sued the individual perpetrators in addition to the school - the administrators who adjudicate the case - they'd have a really hard time getting anyone to do that job after the first couple of verdicts come down. Losing your house and having to declare bankruptcy is a pretty big deterrent which might just counterbalance the social pressure to enforce the PC police code.

  • Crafty Boomer||

    qualified immunity is for government workers...U of Chicago is private...I would love to be on the jury...

  • James Pollock||

    You skipped a step... an important step... in between naming people in lawsuits and the bankruptcy and home-losing. First you have to actually win the case. There's a reason why all those administrators aren't in bankruptcy and homeless, and that reason is that they aren't going to lose the lawsuit(s) you envision.

    Quick... under what cause of action will you name administrator-X in your lawsuit?

  • D-Pizzle||

    Title IX violation, breach of contract.

  • James Pollock||

    Either of which gets the (would-be) defendant dismissed from the lawsuit for improper joinder.

  • Crafty Boomer||

    we need a civil war ASAP

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    We need a Civil War like we need an Ebola epidemic. I'm afraid we're going to get one, though.

  • ||

    Wait.. which one? Because it will make a huge difference in how I prep.

  • vek||

    How do you figure?

    Civil wars are, uhhh, messy... But if they go down the right way, they can be MORE than worth it in the long haul.

    When our ancestors fought a civil war against that douche bag king in England, the result was the best nation in the history of the world.

    Given that modern day leftists are all a bunch of pussies, I suspect this go around would be far easier to win than either the Revolution or the 1st American Civil War... And if we actually restored some semblance of liberty in this country, it would be a tremendously awesome thing.

    Sometimes people are too quick to war... Like invading Iraq. Other times we are too slow to war... Like the nonsense people have been putting up with in the western world the last several decades. If European and American citizens had strung up a few score of politicians, imagine all the BS that could have been prevented.

  • MarkLastname||

    Chicago is way ahead of you.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Go ahead boomer. Please show live video of when the police blowing your head off. You rebel you.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    *are

  • Rich||

    After the relationship ended, she said, she realized his behavior had been abusive.

    Uh, huh. And what did she realize about *her* behavior?

    Also, why is any of this foolishness the business of the school?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Dear Colleague...."

  • Ben of Houston||

    That's what's really getting to me. If it's that bad, the police should be involved. The school has no business conducting what are essentially criminal investigations and trials.

  • James Pollock||

    "Also, why is any of this foolishness the business of the school?"

    Premises liability. Same reason Wal-Mart has to pay because you stepped on a grape and fell down.

  • khm001||

    Walmart doesn't have to pay if another person attacks you. You're grasping at straws to remove due process and the presumption of innocence for men.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Welcome to the new PC world of ultra-feminism:

    No woman would or could ever lie and she should never be questioned as to truth. All women's motives are pure.
    All men are rapist, molesters and abusers. All men's motives are evil.
    You are guilty by being a man (see above), no trial needed. You should lose all means of livelihood and be driven from society.

  • James Pollock||

    This is the danger of getting all your information from one side of a dispute. In this case, it's all coming from his side.

  • Gasman||

    Her side would be more transparent if she had gone to the proper authorities, the police, to file a report of crime. However she used a the university, and has hidden her actions and accusations under federal rules of privacy that apply.
    But now she will have the opportunity to speak publicly on the matter of the civil suit.

  • James Pollock||

    "Her side would be more transparent if she had gone to the proper authorities, the police, to file a report of crime."

    The way you know she didn't is because you talked to.... (?) Nobody? Just pulled that "fact" out of your ass, then? No reason to suspect any bias, then!

    "But now she will have the opportunity to speak publicly on the matter of the civil suit."

    Oops. Somebody forgot to ask her to speak publicly on the matter of the civil suit, and went ahead and reported the story from just the one side.

  • khm001||

    You know she's not gonna fuck you, right? And no woman is gonna fuck you for being such a push over.

  • DiegoF||

    Very, very disappointed in Chicago. Probably the single most all-around illustrious university in this country; longstanding center of liberal and conservative thought in multiple disciplines; prez famous for making the single most unhedged and unapologetic defense of free speech of any in the English speaking world. I did not see this coming. And now when we finally have a halfway decent SecEd. Disgraceful. And yet another sign that the future is bleaker than even I had been fretting about.

  • Jerryskids||

    Yeah, really disappointed here, too. Didn't Chicago just recently come out with a strong statement on defending free speech and state that they were definitely not going to tolerate people shutting down speakers they didn't agree with? And now they fold on something like this:

    She said that attending a Panhellenic Council workshop—a film screening and discussion on relationship violence—was "eye-opening," confirming for her that she had been involved in an abusive relationship. Realizing this, she resolved to "move on" and put the experience behind her.

    I mean, this is a textbook case of somebody deciding after the fact that "yes" meant "no" and somehow the other party is at fault for lacking precognition. (Which, at this point, it kind of is his fault - anybody ignorant enough to not understand that all sex with a college female is unprotected sex and it ain't syphilis or gonorrhea you have to worry about is too ignorant to deserve a diploma.)

  • DiegoF||

    Has Robby been pretty unimpeachable in his coverage of the campus rape issue? If so we should give him propers from time to time. We are a fair-minded bunch, no?

  • Cyto||

    He has been at the forefront of this story for quite a while. He's like the Balko of campus-hookups-gone-wrong. Except Balko only had to worry about the police and their supporters. Soave has to worry about 80% of the people that surround him judging him to be an apostate. Which would explain the pervasive qualifiers.

    What I suspect that he has learned over the last couple of years is that the true believers are not assuaged by qualifiers. You are either a true believer or an apostate. There is no middle ground where reasonable discussion can be had.

  • DiegoF||

    Actually now that I think about it isn't one of the things commenters keep going back to, something about Robby having supported the UVA rape hoax? Or maybe the Duke but I think the UVA.

  • Cyto||

    He exposed the UVA hoax by asking a few salient questions. And when he got excoriated for it, he wrote an excellent takedown in response. That kinda made his name.

    Well, that and putting "to be sure, Trump is as bad as Hitler" in all of his articles that have any criticism of the left.

  • Cyto||

    Here's the article that started it all for him. As far as I recall, he was the second writer to go public with skepticism, with the first being Richard Bradley in his blog.

    Then Jezebel decided to adjudicate the matter. And this was the result. Epic. And it resulted in a back-and-forth that vaulted Soave to the forefront. Arguing with crazy can be an advantage, in very specific and limited circumstances. This was just such an instance.

    In the end she actually apologized for calling him an idiot... which may be some sort of record. It certainly was unique. It even made Wikipedia.

  • Cyto||

    Ok, somehow a popover managed to get me to SF the links in epic fashion. So let's just go old school:

    link one.

    link two

  • Zeb||

    Yes, Robby has done good work in this area. I think he gets more shit than he deserves.

  • posmoo||

    this is the only subject he is thoroughly rational about. he gets the proper amount of shit.

  • mtrueman||

    " If so we should give him propers from time to time."

    Why? Guy manages to write an entire article without even attempting to interview the principals involved. Cribs the whole thing from a lawsuit and Chicago's student newspaper. Getting and presenting both sides of the story is a fundamental of journalism. What Bobby's doing here is propagandistic and tendentious. Certainly we should be fair/minded, and I realize Bobby's probably given very little say about how is work appears, but we readers must demand standards be met, to keep the place honest.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is a blog. It isn't Reason Magazine.

  • mtrueman||

    Even a blogger can pick up a phone and make a call. No need to change that dirty t-shirt or leave that basement.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    We are a fair-minded bunch, no?

    No. Robbie is a far left prog-tard pretending until his buddy Dave Weigel is able to get him a job at WaPo. /idiots

  • Mickey Rat||

    Anyone who thinks they can have sex with someone without emotional investment of some kind by one party or another is playing with fire. It might be possible, but it is an uncommon beast.

  • SIV||

    This Jane Roe sounds like a real skank. But for once I'm going to have to agree with Robby that:

    no doubt there is some blame to go around.
  • Griffin3||

    Am I the only one who finds the name of the student paper, the Chicago Maroon, unintentionally and over-the-top hilarious?

  • SIV||

    Seems racist*


    (*of course what doesn't these days?)

  • DiegoF||

    I believe they were founded by escaped slaves who made their homes in the wilds around Hyde Park, so no.

  • Cyto||

    If you are old enough to know who Mel Blanc was, then yes.

    "What a Maroon! What a nim-cow-poop!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGgnI6kCrs

  • pro bonobo||

    Alternatively,
    "What a maroon! What an ignoranimus!"

    Mel Blanc is greatly missed.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    #BelieveWomen
    #SaveRoe

  • eyeroller||

    If they're going to give people aliases, can they please stop using two words that are practically the same (and even mean the same thing)?

    "That came to an end during winter break, when Doe accompanied Roe on a family trip to Costa Rica. During an argument, Roe punched Doe in the face and scratched him, and Doe spit at Roe. This caused them to break up."

    It reads like a comedy routine.

  • DiegoF||

    Isn't one a deer, a female deer; and the other eggs from fishies? (Or male sea urchin 'nads.)

    Pretty old naming convention to be upending.

  • Zeb||

    It's also a kind of deer.

  • DiegoF||

    Oh yeah good point; I think I remember that now. Well they don't mean the same thing!

  • perlchpr||

    Unless it's a Roe doe.

  • Trigger Warning||

    https://youtu.be/OlURaumkAA8

    This is the level of Title IX investigations, except more rigorous.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Consent can be revoked at any time. Not all survivors behave as you would expect. He had a penis. Guilty.

  • DiegoF||

    What happens in a disputed encounter between a man with a vagina and a woman with a penis? Who is the victim there?

  • RoyMo||

    The woman with a penis, since she is a woman she is the victim. But even if it was a trans-woman and a cis-woman, the transwoman by not being cisgender wins.

    So at the pinnacle "The Man" always wins.

  • perlchpr||

    Hopefully her degree is retroactively revoked, and she has to pay out lots of money on top of that. And I hope the asshats at Chicago lose their shirts.

  • DiegoF||

    Or that the shirts at Chicago lose their asses, at the very least.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The obvious answer is that all sex should be filmed with loud, vocal consent before, during and after.

    And then posted on the internet for safe keeping.

  • DiegoF||

    Just ask first, no matter what campus you're on. Not like that Indian fratboy asshole who peeped on Tyler Clementi.

  • ||

    College Coed: But your honor, on the video I was screaming oh God, fuck me, fuck Meeeee, but I found out in a Woman Studies class 2 years later that I really meant Stop! I withdraw my consent. Plus I'm not even religious, so the defendant raped me with his Christianity too.

    College Administrator: "Seems legit. 50 years in prison for the defendant and $2,000,000,000 fine. Next!"

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Even Roe thought the expulsion was a harsh outcome, she told The Maroon.

    "To go through four full years of college, and to have paid for all of it, and get nothing for it, is a terrible thing to have happen," she said, while adding that "this all could have been avoided had he not behaved the way he did and made the decisions he made, and he is the only person to blame for him being expelled."

    I wouldn't be giving her any points for empathy with her victim, Robby. She may think it's a harsh outcome, but she also thinks it is well deserved. Fuck her.

  • DiegoF||

    Yeah I understand grabbing for an "even the victim says it's harsh" straw, but this is too much. There's very little here besides "serves him right." What's next; is Emma Sulkowicz going to say her victim shares blame with the Patriarchy, and earn the same treatment?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Fuck her.

    Not without an affirmative consent form, signed and filed with both party's attorneys. Also, both attorneys must be present during the sexual encounter to ensure that consent is enthusiastic and obtained on an ongoing basis throughout, with addendums to the original consent form signed and filed as needed for any activities not covered in the original form.

  • James Pollock||

    " she also thinks it is well deserved. Fuck her."

    She might be right. Maybe get both sides of the story before deciding who's fucked? It's kind of the American way.

  • Tony||

    What you want is to try to avoid fucking crazy. I fucked crazy once and ended up in an apparently lifelong relationship. Crazy you can't get rid of is the worst kind of crazy.

  • Eddy||

    I thought of a cruel onanism-related joke, but decided against it.

  • Agammamon||

    Don't worry - we all thought of the same joke.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I was going to reply but then realized I really don't care.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    The scary fact that a conscious sober human being would allow you to touch them intimately is proof that there does exist someone on this earth who's a bigger retard than you.

  • Eddy||

    OK, the guilty parties should be get what's coming to them, and *if* the allegations are true, "guilty parties" means the woman and the university.

    Though in a rare agreement with mtrueman, I'd say that if Robby has the campus beat, he should be doing some interviewing of his own, if only to be able to say "so and so refused to comment, etc."

    For instance, if I were Robby (not that my hair matches his), I'd ask the guy to show me the entire trial transcript, or to sign a release allowing me to see it. Likewise with the woman.

    Here's a troublesome claim:

    "officials found him responsible for having done things Roe never even alleged in any formal capacity"

    Depending on what it says in the University's rules (it's a private college after all), this might be a problem, because civilized codes of due process require that you have a chance to defend yourself against an allegation before being convicted of it.

  • Eddy||

    Let me add that reading this makes me jealous and relieved at the same time. On the one hand, you feel a tad jealous reading about a context where one is surrounded by horny people who find you so attractive they're willing to have sex with you even after breaking up with you. On the other hand, the reader gets the satisfaction of seeing the characters pay a steep price for their horniness, allowing for some Puritanical reflections on the Rewards of Vice, including "well, I guess I lucked out after all, not being in such an environment!"

  • perlchpr||

    I'm just relieved I went to college 20 years ago.

  • Eddy||

    I'm certainly open to the possibility that there's such a thing as false allegations of false rape allegations.

    And to be sure, there's false allegations of false allegations of false rape allegations.

    So it would boil down to the facts of each particular case on the issues of (a) guilty or innocence and (b) the fairness of the "trial."

  • Sevo||

    "Though in a rare agreement with mtrueman, I'd say that if Robby has the campus beat, he should be doing some interviewing of his own, if only to be able to say "so and so refused to comment, etc.""

    Not sure how to search for it, but I'm pretty sure he has done calls and emails to the parties or their agents quite often.

  • perlchpr||

    Does Robby even have anyone's actual name? I guess he could have sought comment through people's various attorneys.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Though in a rare agreement with mtrueman, I'd say that if Robby has the campus beat, he should be doing some interviewing of his own, if only to be able to say "so and so refused to comment, etc."

    Probably. Although "to be sure" (did I do that right?) all parties have probably been advised by their lawyers to keep their mouths shut at least until after the lawsuit has been settled.

  • Agammamon||

    Even *criminal* codes of due process don't require that - get to the sentencing phase and the judge can consider whatever he wants, even stuff that wasn't brought up in trial to be defended.

  • Eddy||

    To the extent our own criminal code allows this (a complicated story), then it's not civilized.

  • DajjaI||

    anything you can do while drunk and not blacked out you can do while blacked out — you just won't remember it the next day

    - According to the NIH.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>according to a disclaimer at the end

    "Gamma Phi do or die"? wtf no bias here

  • Dillinger||

    >>>The Chicago Maroon

    Obama?

  • DiegoF||

    Enough please! I cannot handle all these giggles.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Don't stick it in crazy, and don't continue sticking it in crazy after breaking it off. No amount of poontang is worth the risk.

  • Vernon Depner||

    breaking it off

    Ouch.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Dubious, but credible.

  • Agammamon||

    Theirs appears to have been an extremely messy break-up and subsequent friends-with-benefits period; no doubt there is some blame to go around.

    Do you even human? If it was a messy breakup then they weren't going to be continuing to have sex afterwards.

    . . .. no doubt there is some blame to go around.
  • Agammamon||

    Theirs appears to have been an extremely messy break-up and subsequent friends-with-benefits period; no doubt there is some blame to go around.

    Do you even human? If it was a messy breakup then they weren't going to be continuing to have sex afterwards.

    . . .. no doubt there is some blame to go around.
  • IceTrey||

    Surely he had completed all his course work 4 days before graduation. Not allowing him at the ceremony is one thing but not granting his degree seems a breach of contract.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Her claims which are recent are labeled "dubious" while CB Ford's claims were not.

  • ejhickey||

    what a gigantic waste of time for everyone involved in the Maroon (as in Bugs Bunny "Maroon")

  • ejhickey||

    correction : what a gigantic waste of time for everyone involved including the Maroon

  • Marshal||

    It about time those wrongly accused started suing their accusers. Refusing to do so was legitimizing the left's invented standard that it's unfair to question even false accusers.

  • Echospinner||

    OT

    Just saw that Stan Lee died

    Z"L

  • BCarter||

    'no doubt there is some blame to go around.'

    And you know this how? Reason keeps getting more ridiculous day by day.

  • SIV||

    John Doe kept fucking the crazy bitch.

  • jjjjj||

    Liberals sure are making a good case for Abstinence Only education

  • CGN||

    Why in God's name is the U of C, a prestigious university, assuming with ZERO facts that something illegal happened? Answer, because the college reps are COWARDS who would rather send an innocent man to jail than say a woman would lie about anything. What a horrid thing! Does the university REALLY think women NEVER lie?!!?

  • James Pollock||

    "Why in God's name is the U of C, a prestigious university, assuming with ZERO facts that something illegal happened?"

    Why in God's name are you assuming this?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Young men in college: NEVER have sex with someone who is a student a the same school you are attending. It's just too risky. If you can't handle abstaining through your college years, then find a local girl or one who attends a different school.

    Also, if you walk into a social gathering at your school and women are there drinking or using drugs, leave immediately. You don't have to actually touch anyone to be accused of sexual misconduct.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Hookers

  • Vernon Depner||

    Even if you get caught, you'll get your day in court.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Perhaps Sister, you shouldn't have slugged the guy in the face, and lied about the entire affair to your "friends".

  • majil||

    if not for their pussies there would be a bounty on them

  • buybuydandavis||

    Universities have no business making determinations about crimes.

    If someone has raped you, take it to the cops where it belongs.

  • loki||

    When are dudes going to learn to leave title lX indoctrinated college girls alone for fuck's sake! There's plenty of milfs at the local dive bar.

  • Vernon Depner||

    At the least, go for girls who go to a different school.

  • Indy Texan||

    $1 BILLION. Please. An example needs to be made.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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