An Amherst College student blacked out, accompanied a fellow student back to her dorm room after drinking in February 2012. While he was blacked out, she performed oral sex on him.

Nearly two years later, she would accuse him of sexual assault. And under Amherst's guilty-until-proven-innocent (and even then, as we'll see, still guilty) hearing standards, the accused student was expelled.

The accused student — using the pseudonym John Doe — is suing the college for denying him due process. His lawyer had discovered text messages that prove the accused student did not initiate the encounter and in no way sexually assaulted the accuser. Despite this evidence, the college refused to reopen Doe's case.

RELATED ARTICLE: Anti-discrimination law is being used to discriminate

K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, obtained Doe's lawsuit as well as transcripts from the hearing that found him guilty. Johnson first describes Amherst's Kafkaesque sexual assault rules, which stated goal is to "empower victims" during hearings rather than determine the truth.

Johnson notes that the school has adopted the "yes means yes" definition of consent — meaning someone has to ask before performing any sexual act on another person and receive an affirmative response. But the standard provides no way for accused students to prove they obtained such consent. (For that matter, given that the sexual act was performed on the accused student, was there any evidence he provided affirmative consent?)

The school also requires drunk students engaging in sexual activity to "be aware of the other person's level of intoxication" and warns students that "an individual may experience a blackout state in which he/she/they appear to be giving consent, but do not actually have conscious awareness or the ability to consent." Johnson asks how an accused student is supposed to have been aware of another's intoxication or known they were in a "black out state," as Amherst doesn't provide an explanation.

RELATED ARTICLE: We're in the midst of a college revolution --- and liberals are leading it

The entire adjudication process at Amherst, revised after another student claimed the school mistreated her sexual assault accusation, was designed to find guilt, Johnson wrote. An accused student may hire an attorney, but that attorney cannot say anything during the hearing. An accused student may receive a campus "adviser" who "is not an advocate for the student." Meanwhile, the accuser's adviser is absolutely their advocate.

For Doe, his "adviser" was an administrator who lacked tenure and was trained in "social justice education." Doe was not allowed to directly cross-examine his accuser and could only write down questions for the panel to ask her, leaving no room for follow-ups. The hearing panel, meanwhile, was made up of "student life officials" and another administrators trained in "social justice education" — none of whom had tenure.

The investigator of the sexual assault claim lacked the subpoena power to actually investigate. Had the investigator been able to properly investigate, they would have uncovered the text messages that proved there was no assault.

RELATED ARTICLE: The continuing collapse of 'The Hunting Ground,' a campus sexual assault propaganda film

This is one of the few cases where we have an actually good idea of what happened the night in question. Doe accompanied the accuser (who was Doe's girlfriend's roommate) to her dorm room. The accuser performed oral sex on a blacked out Doe (Johnson notes that even the Amherst hearing found Doe's account of being blacked out "credible"). Doe leaves. The accuser then texted two people: First, a male student she had a crush on — whom she invited over after a heavily flirtatious exchange earlier in the evening. Then, a female friend.

The accuser said during her hearing that she only texted one friend to help her handle the assault as she felt "very alone and confused." But her texts with her female friend give no indication of an assault. Rather, the accuser texted her friend "Ohmygod I jus did something so fuckig stupid" [sic throughout]. She then proceeded to fret that she had done something wrong and her roommate would never talk to her again, because "it's pretty obvi I wasn't an innocent bystander."

She also complained that the other man, who had come over after the alleged assault, had taken until 5 in the morning to finally have sex with her.

The accuser found herself friendless after the encounter, when her roommate discovered what she had done.

RELATED ARTICLE: California's sexual re-education camps are coming soon

Between the encounter with Doe and the accusation — nearly two years later — the accuser developed new friends. And as it happens, these new friends were all "victims' advocates."

When Doe discovered the text messages, he presented the findings to Amherst. The school refused to reopen his case. K.C. Johnson sums up the case perfectly:

"Once again: this is a case in which an accuser (to put it charitably) misrepresented written evidence vital to her credibility, and this same material, her words, showed — if anything — that she initiated sexual contact against a student who even Amherst's panel described as 'blacked out.,'" Johnson wrote. "And yet, according to Amherst, [the accuser] is a sexual assault 'survivor.'"

The case also shows how a male student can be accused of sexual assault even if the evidence suggests he might have been the one assaulted.

Man charged with sex act in Politics on LockerDome