Everybody remembers the notorious case of John Doe v. Washington and Lee University, in which a university official reportedly told students that “regret equals rape,” advice that John Doe blamed for a false accusation of sexual assault against him by an ex-girlfriend. Washington and Lee settled that lawsuit in February, avoiding a court trial that might have have exposed the elite private university (annual tuition $46,417) to disastrous publicity. This “regret equals rape” motif has appeared in several other cases among the more than 100 lawsuits filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system. What happens, in some of these cases, is that what seemed an entirely consensual encounter is subsequently deemed sexual assault, usually months later, after the accuser has regret or remorse about a hook-up or a relationship. Consider this, from a court filing involving a John Doe lawsuit against the University of Southern California:

Jane, who was a student and athlete at USC, and a group of her friends attended a fraternity party in January 2013 at a large, off-campus house in the hills near Los Angeles. Jane and her friends caught a bus from the fraternity house to the party location. John, a member of the USC football team, was on the same bus. Also attending the party were two male students from an out-of-state university, “Student 1” and “Student 2,” who were friends of John?s teammate. At some point in the evening Jane began to dance, and John began dancing with her. John said that he and Student 1 were both dancing with Jane, “sandwiching” her between them. When asked about this, Jane did not remember whether it had occurred. After dancing together for a few minutes, John pushed Jane onto a couch and gave her a provocative “lap dance,” which John characterized as “flirtatious” and “silly,” and Jane characterized as somewhat “uncomfortable” because people were watching. After the dance, John, Jane, and Student 1 went to a bedroom together. John had vaginal intercourse with Jane while Jane performed oral sex on Student 1. During the sexual activity, John and Student 1 made comments to each other about Jane?s body. All parties agree that the entirety of this encounter was consensual. Jane returned to her group of friends and told them she had sex with John; she seemed happy and excited about it. Approximately 45 minutes later, Jane and John returned to the bedroom a second time. There were multiple men in the room, and people were continually entering and exiting the room.. . .

It was during this second trip to the bedroom that the incident occurred which “Jane” later claimed was assault. Everybody involved was apparently drunk and, pardon me for drawing any unfair conclusions here, but once she had willingly done a three-way (“the entirety of this encounter was consensual”) during this party, what might a reasonable person suppose the expectations were for this second trip to the bedroom? How about “anything goes”? Call me old-fashioned, maybe, but I have no idea what the prevailing customs and norms are for drunken college orgies nowadays. Really, when you’re partying with football players and frat boys at USC (annual tuition $50,210), what are the reasonable expectations concerning acts of sexual perversion?

Well, John Doe got expelled for his role in this orgy, not because the university has any moral standards — USC Is Decadent and Depraved — but because “Jane” got counseling and decided she was a victim:

The incident happened in January 2013. Jane reported it to SJACS in August 2013. She told SJACS representatives that in mid-February her athletic coach suggested that she had confidence issues, and therefore recommended that she see an athletics counselor. When the counselor asked Jane if she had ever been sexually assaulted, “it dawned on me and I connected it.” She then reported to the counselor that she was assaulted by John and several other men at the party. She told her parents about the incident in July of that year, and reported the incident to the school in August.

The rest of the story is merely details, unless you happen to care about the fate of John, who is just another guy who got chewed up by the campus machinery where male students are denied due-process rights.

What conclusions can we draw from this case? It seems obvious that every student at USC is a dangerous pervert. This is why parents pay $50,210 a year, so that their sons and daughters can have drunken orgies at a “prestigious” private university that has no moral standards whatsoever.

Students at USC are freaks and creeps and degenerates of every description. No conscientious parent would spend a cent to send their child to such a wretched hive of scum and villainy as USC, and therefore the only students who enroll there are the offspring of negligent parents who don’t mind squandering $50,210 a year to have their child “educated” in that foul cesspool of immoral hedonism.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: A commenter points out that the court filing cited is a judge’s ruling in the accused student’s favor. Here’s a news account:

SAN FRANCISCO — Wading into the fraught issue of sex crimes on college campuses, a state appeals court has reversed the suspension of a male USC student accused of participating in a group sexual assault against a female student.

The Second District Court of Appeal held that the male student, a USC football player referred to only as John Doe, wasn’t given sufficient notice of the allegations against him or a fair hearing by the school before being suspended.

The ruling highlights the difficult task universities have in balancing accused students’ due process rights with the concerns of victims and federal officials who have urged schools to adopt procedures to keep campuses safe.

Justice Audrey Collins acknowledged in Tuesday’s unanimous panel decision “that universities need adequate tools to address the very serious and sensitive problem of sexual assault on campus.” Still she wrote that “it is not too heavy a burden to require that students facing disciplinary action be informed of the factual basis for the charges against them.”

The male student’s attorney, Marc Harris of Scheper Kim & Harris, said that his client is “extremely gratified by the decision.” . . .

“All the issues that we raised in the court of appeal are issues that we brought up with USC” before turning to the state courts, he said. “This has been a long, painful and damaging path that John has had to take,” he said. He declined to say whether his client will seek to return to USC.

Honestly, if John Doe were my client, I would advise strongly against going anywhere near USC. The place is corrupt beyond description.













Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments