Judge Allows Case to Go Forward In Tough Decision Against Brandeis University

Universities continue putting students into rape courts for things which are plainly not rapes, and furthermore, continuing denying them the most basic due process during these kangaroo courts.

One ridiculous example of this is going on at Brandeis, where one gay guy looked askance at things that happened during their sexual relationship, post break-up, and decided they constituted unwanted sexual conduct.

The unwanted sexual contacts that "John Doe" was found guilty were:

* Putting his hand on the complainant "JC's" groin at a movie date, without verbal consent. (The two had consensual sex the next day.)

* Sometimes waking up JC during their relationship by kissing him, without consent. (As he was sleeping -- consent can't be had.)

* Sometimes looking at JC's private areas during their relationship, while showering. I assume without consent, though if you're showering with someone, well.

* Attempting to perform an act of oral sex on JC during their relationship, which JC didn't want. They fought about it, then later made up.

Take out the gay aspect of the relationship here, and this is pretty much what happens in every relationship. As far as the "putting the hand on the groin" -- at some point, someone initiates sexual contact.

Apparently at Brandeis, it's a crime to try to get to second base.

At some point, they broke up. JC began drinking a lot, and also attending -- I'm not kidding -- "sexual assault workshops," which apparently spurred him to look at their relationship in a whole new rapey light.

On this basis, while denying John Doe the right to know what the charges were against him, to question the complaining witness, etc:

Among other things, under the new procedure, * the accused was not entitled to know the details of the charges; * the accused was not entitled to see the evidence; * the accused was not entitled to counsel; * the accused was not entitled to confront and cross-examine the accuser; * the accused was not entitled to cross-examine any other witnesses; * the Special Examiner prepared a detailed report, which the accused was not

permitted to see until the entire process had concluded; and * the Special Examiner�s decision as to the "responsibility" (that is, guilt) of the

accused was essentially final, with limited appellate review--among other things,

the decision could not be overturned on the ground that it was incorrect, unfair,

arbitrary, or unsupported by the evidence



Making this even worse was the litany of things the Special Examiner found could not be relevant and could not be admitted in the hearing:

Among other things, the Special Examiner based her findings on the following assumptions: * that the long delay in reporting the alleged misconduct, and the failure to make

any contemporaneous complaint, had no bearing at all on J.C.'s credibility; * that the existence of a 21-month-long relationship was irrelevant to any of the

issues in the case, including the issue of consent; * that John's kissing of J.C. while he was asleep constituted sexual misconduct,

because a person who is sleeping is incapacitated and therefore not capable of

giving express consent; and * that J.C.'s abuse of alcohol after the relationship ended bolstered his credibility,

on the ground that victims of sexual assault may abuse substances as a

consequence of the assault

Bolstered his credibility, rather than undermined it, because victims of a 21-month-long rape start hitting the sauce, I guess.

No mention of how the "sexual assault workshops" factored into JC's thinking.

Brandeis found John Doe guilty of violating the campus provisions against sexual assault.

John Doe is now suing Brandeis for, essentially, having branded him a sexual predator in a kangaroo court, and Brandeis moved for the court to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state any claim.

The court refused to do so -- and furthermore seemed to tip its hand that it thinks John Doe's case is not only legally meritorious, but likely to prevail at trial.

KC Johnson -- the academic who uncovered the fraud in the Crystal Gayle Mangum hoax rape case -- is continuing to document these abuses, and has put up key sections of the ruling with some brief commentary.

One question I have is: Would the court have been so sympathetic to John Doe if JC were a woman? That is, is this just a case of the PC hierarchy of Preferred Persons being preferred? Had John Doe tried to get to second base with a girl on a date, and sometimes woken her up with kisses in the morning, would courts have been more sympathetic to poor JC's plight?

But even if that's the case, the ruling as written must be taken to apply to all similarly-situated persons. It could protect a man accused of touching a girl's tit during a make-out session, or even protect a girl accused of making a power move to the guy's junk during the same make-out session.

Who knows what our lunatic ruling class will actually do with it, though.

One thing to always keep in mind: Colleges are not just doing this on their own initiative. The Obama Administration effectively ordered them to do this with its notorious "Dear Colleague" letter, instructing colleges that they had better begin installing exciting new kangaroo court innovations unless they wanted to be found in violation of Title IX and lose their federal funding.