News | Administration

Found responsible for sexual misconduct, student sues Columbia alleging discrimination, unfair treatment

  • LAWSUIT | A male Columbia student filed a federal lawsuit against the University on Monday for violating his Title IX rights after he was found responsible by administrators of sexual misconduct.

Updated May 19, 11:46 p.m.

A male Columbia student filed a federal lawsuit against Columbia University on Monday for violating his Title IX rights after he was found responsible by administrators of sexual misconduct, the Daily Princetonian reported.

According to the complaint, the student—a member of the crew team only named as John Doe—alleged that administrators succumbed to external pressure from student activists, violated his Title IX rights, and sought to make an example out of the student athlete.

Doe said in the complaint that a female student, named as Jane Doe, filed a complaint against him in September 2013 for nonconsensual sexual activity, five months after John Doe said the two engaged in sexual activity in May 2013. After the University found John Doe responsible this February, it suspended him until the fall of 2015.

The complaint said that Columbia discriminated against the plaintiff because he was male and that “there was a rush of judgement, pandering to the political climate on campus and pressure from woman’s groups [sic], with little thought, if any, given the actual specifics.” In its discussion of the campus climate that affected the decision, the complaint also referenced the Blue and White’s series of articles on sexual assault policies and activism of groups like the Columbia University Democrats.

The complaint, filed in the New York Southern District Court, said that Columbia showed a “lack of impartiality and pre-judgement against an accused male student” during the disciplinary proceedings.

Many of the plaintiff’s complaints with the hearing process are similar to those outlined by student activists and survivors over the past year, and particularly those detailed in the Blue and White pieces.

John Doe’s suit alleges that when he met with Title IX Investigator Jilleian Sessions-Stackhouse in September to provide his testimony, Sessions-Stackhouse took inaccurate and incomplete notes, and did not interview several witnesses that he said were present the night of the incident.

The suit said that in January, when John Doe met with Interim Assistant Director of Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Virginia Ryan, Ryan failed to correct mistakes in the written report and still did not interview the other witnesses requested by John Doe. It also said that Sessions-Stackhouse pursued “an admission of ‘guilt’” when questioning Doe.

Prior to the hearing panel in February, John Doe said in the suit, he was not informed he would be required to make a statement in front of the panel. The complaint also said that many of the questions he raised during the hearing were dismissed as “irrelevant” by panelists. Doe was found responsible and sanctioned with suspension until the fall of 2015.

According to the suit, both John and Jane Doe individually appealed to the University to reduce the sanction. Columbia ultimately denied the appeal.

This lawsuit comes after a year of student activism pushing for the University to improve how it handles sexual assault cases—in April, a group of 23 students filed a federal complaint to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, alleging the University had violated Title II, Title IX, and Clery Act requirements. Last week, a student filed a police report for an alleged sexual assault that took place in 2012 after she became frustrated with the University’s response.

Andrew Miltenberg—the attorney representing John Doe—of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP was not immediately available for comment Monday.

The University declined to comment, as Columbia does not comment on ongoing legal matters.

Check back for updates.

news@columbiaspectator.com  |  @ColumbiaSpec

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Anonymous posted on

Now we are finally seeing the other side. This is just the start.

+1
+34
-1
Anonymous posted on

What "other side"? "Start" of what?

+1
-18
-1
Anonymous posted on

Other side of the picture where false allegations or misled allegations become frequent. In the whole picture due process and fair treatment of BOTH parties is important

+1
+43
-1
Anonymous posted on

No one reading this article will disagree with you that due process and fair treatment of both parties is important. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. So there is no "other side of the picture" on that point.

As for false or misled allegations: what we all need is to take a higher ground above the "rapists are getting away unpunished" v. "women are making false accusations" debate. We'll never get anywhere if this turns into battle over who's telling the truth on he-said-she-saids. Rather, we need to figure out how to create a culture where people don't feel like they've been mistreated in the first place. Whoever Jane Doe is, I *really* doubt that she was happy to have reported John Doe for rape, or did it on a lark or out of regret. It's absolutely horrifying to report sexual assault or rape, and no one in their right mind would do it unless they had a very good reason.

The plaintiff in this case seems to suggest that Jane Doe's motivation in reporting it as rape was to clear her name within her social circle. We actually haven't established that this is true... but let's assume for the moment that it was. What kind of culture do we have, here at Columbia, such that a woman who cheats on her boyfriend is so afraid of being ostracised that she would publically misconstrue a consensual encounter as rape? Are we that judgmental of each other? And isn't there a double-standard? If a man cheats on his girlfriend, people are much more wont to let him off the hook, than if a woman does. And that in itself is unfair and discriminatory. THAT's the "other side of the picture".

So yeah, you might think there's all these false or misled allegations that are going to come to light. And you might think they are all coming from women. Both of these assumptions are unproven. But EVEN IF they're true -- which I doubt -- we have to ask the question, what kind of culture have we created, that women would have to resort to false or misled allegations? Accusing anyone of any major crime like rape, whether true or false, is neither pleasurable, nor does it make you popular.

+1
-14
-1
Just to be clear posted on

So, just to be clear, this post is basically saying that if there is a culture where women need to report as rape consensual encounters that involve cheating on their boyfriends, then the problem lays with the culture, and not with the person claiming rape? I vehemently disagree with those who state that a culture of casual sex is responsible for sexual assault on campus. Criminals are responsible for assault, and should be brought to justice. But, those who make false claims of rape are also criminals, and also should be brought to justice and removed from our community. THAT's the "other side of the picture". Anon's attempt to remove blame from the false accuser is, in my mind, reprehensible. But, all of that aside, we know virtually nothing about the accused and the accuser, and to that effect, Anon's attempt to assert motive is equally reprehensible.

+1
+23
-1
Anonymous posted on

This is anon. I agree with you that false claims are criminal. I think we all do. However, given that it's often impossible to determine the truth or falsity of a sexual assault claim, the focus you have here on who's to blame is not practically helpful. The way to make progress on this issue is to change the culture, such that neither assault nor false claims occur in the first place.

+1
-3
-1
Anonymous posted on

I would agree that in, say, a negotiation, the process of blame attribution is neither productive nor particularly cathartic. However, socially, blame is necessary with regard to crime. Changing the culture may do much to prevent future crime, while ensuring that victims feel more comfortable reporting crimes immediately. And you make an excellent point, one that I failed to notice at first, in suggesting that this is the proper domain of the current campus debate. However, that debate has strayed too far into discussing - with limited information - who is, and isn't, guilty of prior crimes. Crimes that have been committed rightly fall into the domain of blame and justice. And as justice can be ruinous, blame must be determined, rather than anonymously declared.

+1
+10
-1
Personality Disorders posted on

"It's absolutely horrifying to report sexual assault or rape, and no one in their right mind would do it unless they had a very good reason."

Absolutely correct. False accusations, however, tend to be generated by those individuals who aren't in a "right mind". Sadly, there are plenty of people out there like this.

+1
+9
-1
anon posted on

Historically there are several contexts in which there have been widespread mis-reportings of rape. So I do not think that women really have no incentive to cry rape other than that they actually felt raped.
example 1: Lot of white girls called "rape" when they had consensual relations with african american men and were found out by their parents and did not want to deal with the then stigmatic association with African Americans (which is preposterous in its own self and glad that period is over)
example 2: If you look at the increasing number of sexual harrassment lawsuits in the work place a lot of them turn out to be some kind of a political power play. Although this evidence is anecdotal, I have had an uncle go through real hell because he got someone from his company fired for incompetency and she filed for sexual harassment and rape. A year and a half later the allegations were proven false but the hell my uncle went through in the whole world thinking he was a rapist was quite unimaginable. And in this whole process he found out that he was not an exception at all.

Human behaviour is not as easy to explain as "why would she/he go through the trouble of reporting rape." People do many things for several reasons. On top of that the blurred line of drunken hookups (and yes it is a blurred line, not a black and white issue) is not easily resolvable. It is easy to put the responsibility on the guy and I genuinely feel that guys should avoid sleeping with women in drunken states because there is a possibility they will regret it. But legally dealing with this is a big challenge.

I think it is a tautology that rape is bad and that taking advantage of a drunk girl is bad. But it is just something logistically hard to parse out the truth. It also then becomes a question of who gets the benefit of the doubt. Do we want to live in a world where a few guilty people go free or a few innocent people get locked up. I personally beleive the latter is worse. But I know everyone does not agree with me

+1
+7
-1
anon posted on

Historically there are several contexts in which there have been widespread mis-reportings of rape. So I do not think that women really have no incentive to cry rape other than that they actually felt raped.
example 1: Lot of white girls called "rape" when they had consensual relations with african american men and were found out by their parents and did not want to deal with the then stigmatic association with African Americans (which is preposterous in its own self and glad that period is over)
example 2: If you look at the increasing number of sexual harrassment lawsuits in the work place a lot of them turn out to be some kind of a political power play. Although this evidence is anecdotal, I have had an uncle go through real hell because he got someone from his company fired for incompetency and she filed for sexual harassment and rape. A year and a half later the allegations were proven false but the hell my uncle went through in the whole world thinking he was a rapist was quite unimaginable. And in this whole process he found out that he was not an exception at all.

Human behaviour is not as easy to explain as "why would she/he go through the trouble of reporting rape." People do many things for several reasons. On top of that the blurred line of drunken hookups (and yes it is a blurred line, not a black and white issue) is not easily resolvable. It is easy to put the responsibility on the guy and I genuinely feel that guys should avoid sleeping with women in drunken states because there is a possibility they will regret it. But legally dealing with this is a big challenge.

I think it is a tautology that rape is bad and that taking advantage of a drunk girl is bad. But it is just something logistically hard to parse out the truth. It also then becomes a question of who gets the benefit of the doubt. Do we want to live in a world where a few guilty people go free or a few innocent people get locked up. I personally beleive the latter is worse. But I know everyone does not agree with me

+1
+2
-1
? posted on

I sincerely doubt an epidemic of false accusations are having hundreds of innocent young men wrongly convicted, as opposed to the opposite, which is true: that epidemic proportions of college women (1 in 5) are sexually assaulted without receiving justice. That said, this story, if true, would only further indicate that the adjudication process is woefully inadequate at the expense of both victims and wrongfully accused. This issue is not men vs women, but a community of ALL identities vs a few violent offenders

+1
+32
-1
Anonymous posted on

The problem is the definition of sexual assault is to wide and too vague. Someone touching your arm, or saying you look pretty today could be considered sexual assault. This is typically what those stats are counting.

+1
+8
-1
Anonymous posted on

KC Johnson :" This is the low point for Columbia when fliers were posted around campus listing four male students as "rapists"--based solely on their being found "'responsible' by the University." Leave aside the fact that calling someone a "rapist" who hasn't faced criminal charges, much less been found guilty in a court of law, would seem to constitute a borderline (at the least) libelous statement.
An Absurd Definition of 'Sexual Assault'
Instead, consider Columbia's extraordinarily broad definition of "sexual assault," which goes far beyond anything in the criminal justice system, in two respects.
First, the university defines sexual assault as not only rape, as understood in the criminal justice system, but also "any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent. Intentional sexual contact includes contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, or touching another with any of these body parts, or making another person touch any of these body parts; any intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner." How many people would consider such behavior--while indefensible--to constitute rape? To Columbia, however, forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual "sexual touching, however slight" are both "sexual assault." And the fliers suggest that the message has been received.
Second, while the university notes that sexual assault, by definition, comes without consent, it modifies this provision in a critical way: "Alcohol and other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given." Taken literally, then, any alcohol use by the female party to sexual intercourse could call into question whether a Columbia tribunal will subsequently brand a male student a rapist, since even if the female gave consent, the university claim non-consensual contact on grounds of "confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given."
In this atmosphere, accused students appear to be guilty until proven innocent, even as Title IX claims suggesting that the definitions above (coupled with procedures that deny accused students the right to counsel) unlawfully act against the rights of accusers.
As colleges adopt a de facto presumption of guilt in undertaking investigations for which they are in no way competent, they will be hit with more and more of these kinds of lawsuits. And it's fair to say that the presidents and administrators of these institutions are bringing it on themselves."
- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/here_come_the_lawsuits_over_se.html#sthash.B7ehPNXk.HEx9TmQX.dpuf

+1
+6
-1
Anonymous posted on

athletes and drinking -- seen the video

+1
-12
-1
Observer posted on

Prediction: This board will devolve into bashing session that discusses white privilege, athletics, and college drinking. And the same people who think the hook-up culture of privileged ivy league students should bear no discussion when considering the victim, will use those same arguments to demean the accused. (I am not making an argument on whether the culture should be discussed, just that the argument will be used hypocritically against John Doe.)

+1
+17
-1
Anonymous posted on

What is missing here is the legal concept: "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Rape is wrong. Continuing sex over non-consent is wrong. However, starting sex then changing ones attitude over what happened the next morning is not right either. And this has happened before in the news Barnard / Columbia women. Columbia needs serious discussion on this issue.

+1
+8
-1
Anonymous posted on

John Doe and Jane Doe?? Incest on top of that??

+1
+39
-1
Where is everyone? posted on

Wheres Zoe Ridolfi-Starr and her lynch mob?

+1
-20
-1
Erik Joseph Campano posted on

I'm a friend of Zoe Ridolfi-Starr, and I also work with her. Our colleagues in sexual assault prevention are incredibly thoughtful, conscientious, and autonomous people, genuinely seeking justice for everyone: men, women, and people who don't self-ID as either. I'm humbled every day by them. Zoe herself is one of the most sincere, open-minded, and compassionate people I've ever had the luck of knowing -- especially as regards the issue of sexual assault. She acts courageously but carefully, and is anything but a bully or idealouge, as you suggest with your harmful claims that she runs a "lynch mob".

So: don't defame my friend publicly like that.

+1
+19
-1
Where is everyone? posted on

One day, probably soon, a falsely accused young man who has had his reputation ruined, his education arrested, and his future destroyed, will attempt to hurt himself. Mark my words.

Zoe and her lynch mob's reaction will probably be something like this: "Oh well, if he's guilty (and we're 99.9% sure he is, because if he was innocent he would never be accused of anything), then he just got what was coming to him. I just wish tarring, feather, hanging, drawing, and quartering were still legal. And in the 0.01% chance that he's guilty, I guess I feel kind of bad, but not really because he still advances our cause as a warning for the fate that will await would-be rapists."

+1
-17
-1
Anonymous posted on

Nope. We're nonviolent. That's literally the point of our activism, to end violence. Nice try though! 10/10 troll would roll my eyes at again

+1
+5
-1
Anonymous posted on

Well according to the suit filed in court the accused nearly committed suicide following the harassment of both the accuser's friends and the stresses associated with being wrongfully named a rapist.

How is this different then bullying? (Hint: it's not) There is was no physical violence, but the profound psychological effects will be long-lasting.

To all you on this "noble crusade" for gender equality, protection, and what have you: congratulations the atmosphere you have created on campus has done irreparable harm to one young man (that we know about). I hope for your sake he's receiving the psychosocial support he deserves, if not that blood is on your hands.

+1
+15
-1
KC posted on

Cyber-bullying is non-violent as well.

+1
-9
-1
Anonymous posted on

the term "lynch mob" is painfully, ahistorically used here. Zoe and her fellow activists have been working really hard to make this campus safer for everyone. shame on you for equating that with an ideology rooted in racism.

+1
+2
-1
Anonymous posted on

Oh I'm sorry. Would you prefer witch hunt? Red scare? Sacco and Vanzetti? McCarthyism? Pogrom? Stalinist purge?

+1
-1
-1
Analysis posted on

It seems to me that two new narratives are emerging:

(1) Because rape (in whatever form) is so horrifying and so terrible, and because the chances of false reporting are so low given the inherent barriers against people reporting -- therefore, we should continue to hold a lower standard of proof. A small number of innocent peoples' lives ruined is an acceptable price to pay as long as the the broader interests of justice and society are served given the heinousness of rape.

(2) Because rape (in whatever form) is so horrifying and so terrible, the only way to deal with it is an extremist combination of a kangaroo court a la the biased Columbia adjudication process and vigilante mob justice a la No Red Tape. If you disagree with this in any way, you are a rape apologist and no better than a rapist yourself.

We've seen this before. The response in years past is perfectly apropos for the situation now: "Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

+1
-1
-1
Anonymous posted on

How is No Red Tape vigilante mob justice? The group didn't create the "list".

+1
+1
-1
I have evidence posted on

I have evidence that Zoe Ridolfi Starr was directly involved with the markers and/or flyers. Never mind the innuendo and smearing, as long as it serves her perverted and messianic sense of "justice".

Thats the problem with sending these flyers to Print@CU. Document metadata and other forensic trails in Ninja like UNI authentication are a bitch, aren't they?

+1
-11
-1
The Flyers posted on

Why are so many so quick to dislike the possibility that public shaming - via flyers, bathroom graffiti, and message boards - has great potential for harm? Do you really assume that those of us who support a deliberate and thorough investigation of the facts really support rapists? How can it be any way controversial to suggest that unproven accusations against members of our community have tremendous potential for harm? Making such a statement does not diminish the vileness of the crime, nor the suffering of the victim. Criminals have no place in our community, and predators MUST be stopped. However, if one person on that list is innocent, then the men or women who created it should be punished and, potentially, removed from our community. Do people really feel otherwise? And, if so, why?

+1
+25
-1
Answer posted on

"However, if one person on that list is innocent, then the men or women who created it should be punished and, potentially, removed from our community. Do people really feel otherwise? And, if so, why?"

Because these people feel that rape is so heinous that it is acceptable to "sacrifice" a small number of innocent people if it advances the broader cause. Besides, if they were really innocent, they had to be guilty of *something* for people to accuse them. And even if they were, well.. crimethink.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Breaking Columbia news as broken by Princeton's paper

+1
+22
-1
Anonymous posted on

It was actually on the internet, in legal outlets, and in the Princeton paper before Spec even knew about it.

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

Glad to see that everybody agrees that Columbia University deans are incompetent. They are incompetent even at covering their own asses. However, realize that the timing of release of this piece of news is deliberate. They have been criticized so heavily that they must convince themselves that they are doing something about it. Let's pile on these deans' troubles, from both sides, and let's never stop until all of them leave Columbia. Now, as for that perp, I am so glad that he is in trouble. And, like the troubles of the Columbia deans, I hope his never stop. There is no secret in this world, and soon everybody will know who John Doe is. Have a nice life.

+1
-9
-1
Joe posted on

So even if he is not guilty, you hope that "soon everybody will know who John Doe is". Yet you post, anonymously? "There is no secret in this world", a luxury of the irresponsible commentator. Have a nice life.

+1
+16
-1
Anonymous posted on

Yippie Kaye mofo. So you love John Doe.

+1
-18
-1
Anonymous posted on

jesus help me

+1
+1
-1
anon@anon.com posted on

As much as I hate to admit it, the truth is that there really is a "witchhunt" against men sometimes. Even the mention of sexual harassment or rape (even if not true) stacks the odds significantly against the man. Its almost "Guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to rape and sexual misconduct. Sorry if this comment upsets people--but it has been my observation.

+1
+18
-1
Here come the lawsuits posted on

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/here_come_the_lawsuits_over_se.html

+1
+5
-1
Calling someone rapist without proof? Here come the lawsuits posted on

Here Come the Lawsuits over Sex Hearings:
Accused Males Take on Columbia and Drew

By KC Johnson

Colleges and universities almost certainly face a deluge of lawsuits from accused males over the mishandling of sexual misconduct hearings. Columbia and Drew, for instance, have joined the ranks of universities sued by male students claiming that unfair processes led to disciplinary action against them.

At first blush, the Drew case involves a typical he-said-she-said situation, but in fact there were several twists. The accused student, Kevin Parisi, suggests that his accuser, Kai Boulware, had a motive to lie about the consensual nature of their one-time intercourse--to protect her relationship with her boyfriend, Jacob Levy. Parisi claimed that Boulware told him that her boyfriend pressured her to make the complaint, and that she had told another acquaintance the intercourse was consensual. (The acquaintance subsequently confirmed this in a conversation with a private investigator.) The complaint also alleges that Boulware refused to cooperate with a police investigation of the case.

The twist in this case is that the evidence was so weak--indeed, the acquaintance's testimony wholly undermined Boulware's portrayal of events--that Drew found Parisi not culpable. But this occurred after a three-month process (during most of which Drew did no investigation, including, the complaint alleges, not looking into Parisi's assertion that Boulware had contacted him in violation of a university-demanded no contact order). For that period, Drew ordered Parisi to remain off campus, including staying away from his dorm room, except for attending class.

Punishment First, Judgment Later

Civil libertarian critics, such as FIRE and Hans Bader, have pointed out the disturbing nature of OCR's demanding colleges implement "interim" measures that amount to a punishment first, judgment later. The Parisi case is a good example of the toll that such policies can take on the innocent; he's suing Drew on the grounds that the university's treatment of him discriminated on the basis of his gender.

A second recently-filed case, at Columbia, is more typical of the recent spate of Title IX cases. (Both parties are anonymous in the complaint.) Five months after what the complaint describes as a brief hookup, the Columbia accuser filed a college complaint against a male member of the Columbia crew team. The accuser hadn't sought medical attention the night of the incident, and she never reported it to the police. She did, however, text the eventually accused student, expressing concern about how the tawdry nature of their hookup would affect both of the students' social standing if word of it spread. In the end, Columbia deemed the accused student a rapist and suspended him for 1.5 years.

The complaint focuses on the unfairness of Columbia's process (about which I've written previously)--no attorney in the hearing, minimal right to cross-examination and call witnesses, preponderance-of-evidence threshold inviting a guessing game by the tribunal. The complaint suggests (as occurred at Drew, and as we've also seen at Vassar in the Peter Yu case), Columbia didn't meaningfully investigate potentially exculpatory witnesses--in this instance, fellow students who saw the pair chatting before they hooked up. Nor, according to the complaint, did Columbia even inform the accused student about the basically toothless assistance (the non-attorney advisor) to which he was entitled as a part of Columbia's process.

Finally, as occurred in the Witt case at Yale, Columbia had one last surprise for the accused student--despite the promised confidentiality of the university disciplinary process, his name was leaked to the campus newspaper.

The Columbia complaint describes a student who naïvely felt the university would conduct a good-faith investigation--trust that was badly misplaced. (Since the accused student didn't have an advocate, he hadn't even prepared an opening statement for his hearing, and the witnesses he thought would undermine his accuser Columbia never were interviewed.) The complaint not unreasonably hypothesizes that Columbia acted as it did lest the university further inflame the witch-hunt atmosphere we've seen at Morningside Heights in recent months.

What, precisely, is the current atmosphere at Columbia? It perhaps reached its low point when fliers were posted around campus listing four male students as "rapists"--based solely on their being found "'responsible' by the University." Leave aside the fact that calling someone a "rapist" who hasn't faced criminal charges, much less been found guilty in a court of law, would seem to constitute a borderline (at the least) libelous statement.

An Absurd Definition of 'Sexual Assault'

Instead, consider Columbia's extraordinarily broad definition of "sexual assault," which goes far beyond anything in the criminal justice system, in two respects.

First, the university defines sexual assault as not only rape, as understood in the criminal justice system, but also "any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent. Intentional sexual contact includes contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, or touching another with any of these body parts, or making another person touch any of these body parts; any intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner." How many people would consider such behavior--while indefensible--to constitute rape? To Columbia, however, forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual "sexual touching, however slight" are both "sexual assault." And the fliers suggest that the message has been received.

Second, while the university notes that sexual assault, by definition, comes without consent, it modifies this provision in a critical way: "Alcohol and other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given." Taken literally, then, any alcohol use by the female party to sexual intercourse could call into question whether a Columbia tribunal will subsequently brand a male student a rapist, since even if the female gave consent, the university claim non-consensual contact on grounds of "confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given."

In this atmosphere, accused students appear to be guilty until proven innocent, even as Title IX claims suggesting that the definitions above (coupled with procedures that deny accused students the right to counsel) unlawfully act against the rights of accusers.

As colleges adopt a de facto presumption of guilt in undertaking investigations for which they are in no way competent, they will be hit with more and more of these kinds of lawsuits. And it's fair to say that the presidents and administrators of these institutions are bringing it on themselves.

- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/here_come_the_lawsuits_over_se.html#sthash.xaJwdgGe.dpuf

+1
+12
-1
Those who make false claims posted on

are also criminals. False claim - abuse.

+1
+10
-1
NYPD posted on

Conclusion: If you're raped, go to NYPD. It's their responsibility to deal with these cases, not CU.

+1
+9
-1
Anonymous posted on

The burden of proof is significantly higher in a court of law. In a university, a woman simply has to make a complaint, and the male is punished. To what degree dpends on the circumstance, but generally 100% of the time there will be a consequence for the male.

+1
+6
-1
An Absurd Definition of Sexual Assault posted on

KC Johnson :" This is the low point for Columbia when fliers were posted around campus listing four male students as "rapists"--based solely on their being found "'responsible' by the University." Leave aside the fact that calling someone a "rapist" who hasn't faced criminal charges, much less been found guilty in a court of law, would seem to constitute a borderline (at the least) libelous statement.

An Absurd Definition of 'Sexual Assault'

Instead, consider Columbia's extraordinarily broad definition of "sexual assault," which goes far beyond anything in the criminal justice system, in two respects.

First, the university defines sexual assault as not only rape, as understood in the criminal justice system, but also "any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent. Intentional sexual contact includes contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, or touching another with any of these body parts, or making another person touch any of these body parts; any intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner." How many people would consider such behavior--while indefensible--to constitute rape? To Columbia, however, forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual "sexual touching, however slight" are both "sexual assault." And the fliers suggest that the message has been received.

Second, while the university notes that sexual assault, by definition, comes without consent, it modifies this provision in a critical way: "Alcohol and other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given." Taken literally, then, any alcohol use by the female party to sexual intercourse could call into question whether a Columbia tribunal will subsequently brand a male student a rapist, since even if the female gave consent, the university claim non-consensual contact on grounds of "confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given."

In this atmosphere, accused students appear to be guilty until proven innocent, even as Title IX claims suggesting that the definitions above (coupled with procedures that deny accused students the right to counsel) unlawfully act against the rights of accusers.

As colleges adopt a de facto presumption of guilt in undertaking investigations for which they are in no way competent, they will be hit with more and more of these kinds of lawsuits. And it's fair to say that the presidents and administrators of these institutions are bringing it on themselves."

- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/here_come_the_lawsuits_over_se.html#sthash.B7ehPNXk.HEx9TmQX.dpuf

+1
+7
-1
Anonymous posted on

KC Johnson :" This is the low point for Columbia when fliers were posted around campus listing four male students as "rapists"--based solely on their being found "'responsible' by the University." Leave aside the fact that calling someone a "rapist" who hasn't faced criminal charges, much less been found guilty in a court of law, would seem to constitute a borderline (at the least) libelous statement.
An Absurd Definition of 'Sexual Assault'
Instead, consider Columbia's extraordinarily broad definition of "sexual assault," which goes far beyond anything in the criminal justice system, in two respects.
First, the university defines sexual assault as not only rape, as understood in the criminal justice system, but also "any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent. Intentional sexual contact includes contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, or touching another with any of these body parts, or making another person touch any of these body parts; any intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner." How many people would consider such behavior--while indefensible--to constitute rape? To Columbia, however, forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual "sexual touching, however slight" are both "sexual assault." And the fliers suggest that the message has been received.
Second, while the university notes that sexual assault, by definition, comes without consent, it modifies this provision in a critical way: "Alcohol and other drugs can lower inhibitions and create an atmosphere of confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given." Taken literally, then, any alcohol use by the female party to sexual intercourse could call into question whether a Columbia tribunal will subsequently brand a male student a rapist, since even if the female gave consent, the university claim non-consensual contact on grounds of "confusion over whether consent is freely and affirmatively given."
In this atmosphere, accused students appear to be guilty until proven innocent, even as Title IX claims suggesting that the definitions above (coupled with procedures that deny accused students the right to counsel) unlawfully act against the rights of accusers.
As colleges adopt a de facto presumption of guilt in undertaking investigations for which they are in no way competent, they will be hit with more and more of these kinds of lawsuits. And it's fair to say that the presidents and administrators of these institutions are bringing it on themselves."
- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/here_come_the_lawsuits_over_se.html#sthash.B7ehPNXk.HEx9TmQX.dpuf

+1
+4
-1
Anonymous posted on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFn63DBn_KA&feature=youtu.be

+1
+7
-1
Rape is a serious crime but so are FALSE ACCUSATIONS! posted on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFn63DBn_KA&feature=youtu.be

+1
+6
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'll never sleep with Columbia/Barnard women ever again. I don't want to be wrongly accused. NYU women are so much hotter anyway.

+1
+6
-1
Anonymous posted on

I'm glad you'll now respect Columbia/Barnard women. They deserve it. I also hope NYU women will follow soon.

+1
-12
-1
Anonymous posted on

The only answer is to go back to all-male and all-female schools since its the only way to break the power of the few vocal man-haters who hold the other 99% of females under their spell.

+1
+3
-1
false accusations are rampant posted on

but the guys are fighting back. There are dozens of lawsuits filed against universities and those who file false claim. Let's confirm - rape is a serious crime - but so are false accusations. Please read this including the comments - this whole shared will be more clear to you

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2014/05/due-process-and-duke.html

+1
+7
-1
false accusations are rampant posted on

but the guys are fighting back. There are dozens of lawsuits filed against universities and those who file false claims. Let's confirm - rape is a serious crime - but so are false accusations. Please read this including the comments - this whole charade will be more clear to you

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2014/05/due-process-and-duke.html

+1
+6
-1
Anonymous posted on

Columbia is walking on very thin ice eliminating "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Who cares about truth when chained facing the wall (Plato's Cave).

+1
+7
-1
Spectator! This is not a TOP STORY ANYMORE? posted on

It's interesting to see how Spectator arranges its articles - Now that we have the meeting of the alums and students re sexual violence, that is the top story, and Emma S's filing of the suit is right below, however, the story about John Doe filing a lawsuit against Columbia for the same reason -grave injustice - inaction - is under ADMINISTRATION. Good job "journalists"!

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

I am baffled at the fact that when "the University found John Doe responsible this February", "it suspended him until the fall of 2015."
Responsible but not expelled? How are women & men on campus supposed to feel safe when their assailants -or others' assailants- are welcomed back by Columbia after a little time away? Way to negate the gravity of sexual assault and to spit in the face of survivors.

+1
-5
-1
It may sound outrageous posted on

but did you ever think that he might be innocent? That the school found him "responsible", not rapist! because of the pressure they've been getting from women's rights activists? Also, consider Columbia's extraordinarily broad definition of "sexual assault," which goes far beyond anything in the criminal justice system, in two respects.
First, the university defines sexual assault as not only rape, as understood in the criminal justice system, but also "any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person's consent. Intentional sexual contact includes contact with the breasts, buttocks, groin, or touching another with any of these body parts, or making another person touch any of these body parts; any intentional bodily contact in a sexual manner." How many people would consider such behavior--while indefensible--to constitute rape? To Columbia, however, forcible sexual penetration and nonconsensual "sexual touching, however slight" are both "sexual assault." K. Johnson

+1
+2
-1
Published Today posted on

Presumed Guilty: Due Process Lessons Lessons from the Duke Lacrosse Team case:
Kudos to K.C. Johnson. Everyone should see this short video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqt9OX-oAtU

+1
+1
-1
"Found Responsible" - the penalty for the INNOCENT posted on

What some consider "only" one year suspension from college for those "found responsible" is quite often, in today’s academic environment, the penalty for the innocent. In many cases, if a student is found "responsible" this involves more bad judgement on his part than sexual assault. Period!

+1
0
-1
Anonymous posted on

RbTTR

+1
0
-1