Once the Obama Education Department sent out its threatening “Dear Colleague” letter that strongly hinted at dire consequences for universities and colleges that did not tilt their sexual assault disciplinary procedures toward a less stringent standard of guilt, horror stories about male students unjustly presumed guilty of sexual assault or rape have been proliferating. This is the worst one I’ve ever seen.
In February of 2012, a male, Asian-American student (“John Doe”) and “Sandra Jones,” as she is referred to in court documents, went back to Jones’ dorm room after a night of hard drinking. John blacked out, and couldn’t recall anything about the evening, a claim Amherst deemed “credible” during his disciplinary hearing. At some point, Sandra performed oral sex on John. Nearly two years later, Sandra accused John of sexually assaulting her. In his lawsuit, John Doe alleged that his adviser couldn’t speak for him, that he could only write down questions for his accuser or witnesses ( no cross examination) and that the hearing panel was made up of administrators trained in “social justice education.” You know: Men bad, women victims.
In the school’s hearing, Jones claimed she texted a friend to come over for help because she had been sexually assaulted. The school never bothered to obtain those text messages—after all, they followed the Hillary Clinton directive that “victims of sexual assault have the right to be believed.” Here’s what she texted to her girl friend:
“Ohmygod I jus did something so fucking stupid…it’s pretty obvi I wasn’t an innocent bystander.”
In another text, she wrote that John “was too drunk to make a good lie out of shit.” After she invited another male student over to her room that same night, she texted to her friend complaining that he waited until 5 a.m. to have sex with her. “Like, hot girl in a slutty dress. Make. Your. Move. YEAH,” she complained while the guy was still in her room.
John learned about the texts during the hearing but was not able to obtain them until after his appeal had failed. Later, his lawyer presented the messages to Amherst, but they refused to reopen his case. John Doe was expelled.
Now, however, U.S. district court Judge Mark Mastroianni has ruled that major claims in Doe’s lawsuit against Amherst College are supported and valid. Most notably, Mastroianni upheld Doe’s claim that the school breached its contract by discriminating against him based on sex.
Amherst, like other colleges corrupted by that “Dear Colleague” letter, in effect has adopted a “guilty until proven innocent” standard that discriminates against men. It is an ugly and sick development for U.S. colleges, where the only safe stance for male students is never to have intimate relations with any woman on campus, and now, not to even dare to get too drunk in the presence of one, lest they, like John Doe, become sexual assault victims later accused of committing assaults they don’t even remember.
This is one more ugly legacy of the Barack Obama presidency, and another divisive one.
22 thoughts on “From The “‘Dear Colleague’ Letter Aftermath” Files: Amherst’s War On Men”
Like I keep saying, they need to bring back single gender higher education and the doctrine of in loco parentis. Let the students concentrate on learning, and not on getting drunk and screwing.
And to think that Bernie Sanders wants the taxpayer to fund this behavior for everyone.
I’m trying where that ever happened. Maybe some Baptist College back in the 30s. Some of the Ivy League schools like Vassar. Don’t think we’re ever going back to those days. Possibly separate dorm floors for men and women. But there was always a way around that like drive ins and lovers lanes.
Actually it was pretty common until the early 1970s. The men had the Ivy League, the women had the Seven Sisters, and they only met under limited, controlled circumstances. My dad graduated in 1965, and if you weren’t signed in at Mass at 7 AM or in bed when they called lights out at 10 PM, you were in deep trouble.
Jack, Obama did not “order” Amherst to act that way.
No… But the threat of federal funding might as well have made this an order. After my last comment, I tried to find numbers on how Universities are funded, and the short answer is: “It’s complicated.” But I think there’s a solid inference here that schools on the public dole probably couldn’t operate without those funds.
I need to figure out how to id my sarcasm. Trying to be timely given the last statement about not ordering something.
Would wink wink nod nod suffice.
Regarding funding I can speak to Comm college funding. Very little operating comes from the feds. In Md its about 1/3 each student, state and county. Fed funds come through capital funds grants and various special population grants.
At the public 4 year university it depends. For example Frostburg and Towson will get less of a percentage of total budget from Feds because they are not geared for technical research which I huge bucks for UMD. Ironically HBC’s get more of their budget for operations and cap improvements than from the state. As an upshot the Dear Colleague letter would have a much bigger effect on black male students because these colleges rely heavily on Fed $$$.
There’s a “Dis-Par-Ate-Im-Pact” you’ll never hear lefties talk about.
This is one facet of the extreme logical conclusion of the Dear Colleague letter, the mileage varies, and this is one of the most vile outcomes I’ve heard of.
What bears repeating, is that this isn’t entirely the universities fault. I’m not acquitting them, by any means… But they were given a very shitty choice: Resist enacting the Obama Administration’s very loose interpretation of Title IX, and risk their federal funding, or set up these kangaroo courts with lowered standards of guilt and risk lawsuits that put you in very indefensible positions.
I’m not sure the universities did the math properly… Will the financial outcomes of these cases be better or worse than the withheld federal funds? I don’t have a great conception about how much federal money schools receive…. So it’s possible they did the math right, but if they did, that still means that the Obama administration put them in a position where they either go bankrupt in the short term, or go bankrupt in a slightly longer term as the lawsuits pile up.
Mark my words, all it will take is for a Duke Lacrosse type event where there are 30 or 40 defendants, and they resultant lawsuit will actually put a school on the brink of collapse. That’s Obama’s education legacy.
I can’t wait to see the current higher education system to collapse (unfortunately that won’t happen in time for me to avoid paying for my kids schooling). I can see a cottage industry of smallish colleges that take in the order of 300-800 students and grant degrees with an accreditation that is easier to get than the current Byzantine system. Costs are 10-20% of current colleges, classes can be taken in a combination of in-person and online (with many of this colleges pooling to get a star professor to give a class to about 100 students). Extra curricular activities are limited and minimally funded by the school, so you can have your flag football team that plays in the local league (maybe even informally) but no spending millions on facilities and coaches.
If no one is doing this by the time I retire I’m making it my life mission to build the first one of these.
Since a male student who took advantage of a passed out female student would have faced charges, I find it outrageous that he was penalized when he was passed out drunk and she took advantage of him.
It is a ridiculous double standard. He was the victim of a non-consensual sexual act…at least by the definition the college would be using with a female complainant….and he was the one who was punished!
Can I go back to college or high school? Are girls really giving out blowjobs and having sex with guys they’re handing out Pez? Whew. I was definitely born too late. Sigh.
as if they’re handing out Pez
I have yet to read Occupy Democrats defend THIS.
First, you’d have to see it reported in the MSM.
Well according to all the “Womens marches and protests, they want Equality. They should therefore practice up on their skills in defend themselves physically. God made men and women different but apparently the liberal women protesters don’t see it that way, unless it’s to their convenience. That’s not Equality. Isn’t that hypocrisy?
This aspect of feminism is all hypocrisy. I am woman, hear me roar, I need special protection, and even if I falsely accuse a man of assault, I get to be anonymous.
Would not accusations of assault be a matter of public record?
Why would not the falsely accused publicly publish the name(s) and address(es) of the false accusers, similar to what Spike Lee did?
This “they did it to us; now we get to do it to them” simple-minded tit-for-tat seems to be endemic with most complaints and actions arising from certain minorities and women these days. It is a much greater and more fundamental problem than dealing with the factionalism it breeds, much less its legal ramifications.
I am reminded of my niece, who attended a well-respected California college, who was adamant — more so, illogical — about rape on college campuses. In discussion, she admitted that the college regularly provided alcoholic beverages to student events. This,in her terms, did not relate at all to any student sexual behavior,except insofar as admitting that alcohol adjusts normal behavior.
When I asked why the college — with this knowledge– would neverrthless offer free alcohol to students, and then take the hard line that rape is rape is rape regardless of the circumstances — no answer.
And when I suggested that the college itself was complicit: again,no answer.