Drake University Expels Male Student Despite Female Admitting She Forced Him Into Sex Act

CheeseStandsAlone262 · 10時間前

http://timesdelphic.com/2017/03/08/former-board-of-trustees-sues-drake-over-mishandling-sexual-assault-case

Here's a link to Drake's student news article on the matter, which is much more comprehensive and contains links to court documents. I have to say that if the allegations of the complaint are true, that Drake is going to be absolutely slammed when they appear in an actual court with actual procedures and rules of evidence.

SirEDCaLot · 12時間前

Wow, this is fucked up.

If she admitted to investigators that she sexually assaulted him (that's what performing a sexual act without permission is- assault) and the school refused to acknowledge that let alone investigate...

hopefully this kid gets some vindication in the courtroom...

Martianese · 11時間前

After his son's expulsion from Drake University, just one month before graduation, Rossley wanted answers from administration officials. The Board of Trustees told him the matter was over. "If you want to stay a Trustee you need to keep your mouth shut and disassociate yourself from your son`s problem," Rossley said he was told.

Rossley was voted off the Board of Trustees three months later in July. He said, "Drake just believed everything she said and Drake was trying to railroad my son."

So they basically ruin a kids life and don't even want to investigate further, instead letting him go and very unlikely to get accepted to another college ever again? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Criss-Istr · 11時間前

So she blew him, he was too drunk to consent and have an erection, and then SHE pressed sexual assault charges?

blacksoxing · 7時間前

Rossley says his son suffers from anxiety and ADHD, takes medication and receives help in the classroom for his disability. He claims he was not given disability accommodations during the nine hour long disciplinary hearing. "He had to be his own attorney for nine hours without accommodations for his language based learning disabilities. That's like throwing a kid with no arms in a swimming pool," said Rossley.

This is the interesting part to me. The dad is suing based off of his disabilities and not the accusations. At first, I felt like he may have something to hide or whatnot...but then I thought about it: It's easier to say you were not afforded the opportunity to defend yourself properly than it is to say that you didn't commit a crime - big or small.

It's very smart. I have no dog in this race, as I wasn't there that night and the timeline in the article has huge gaps so I don't know if I can make a judgement based off of this lone article. I can thought state that I'd hope my lawyer was smart enough to say I wasn't afforded the proper representation if I were in such a situation...

ThatsRightWeBad · 6時間前

Drake's official statement is amazing:

There are clear differences of opinion about how this situation evolved, and we look forward to presenting a vigorous defense in court.

I bet the expelled student would have loved the opportunity to do that as well.

5時間前

[deleted]

thesilverpig · 12時間前

People like this dumb bitch is the reason why people are extremely hesitant to take rape accusations seriously.

She assaulted the boy, dragged Drake's name through the mud, and stole credibility from actual victims of sexual abuse. The worst kind of person.

capnpitz · 11時間前

The source for literally every fact in this story, with the exception of a comment from Drake at the end, is the father of the expelled student. Even the female student's admission, rather than reported as fact, is reported as an allegation in a lawsuit the dad filed.

Gbank14 · 11時間前

These Title IX "courts" are nothing but a show.

They are gulity until proven innocent. And apparently even in this case, it does not matter.

Nothing but a Kangaroo courtroom.

nurb101 · 6時間前

College courts shouldn't even exist.

grewapair · 5時間前

On the night in question—October 8, 2015—John and Jane met up well after midnight, at Drake's Bakery. Both had been at house parties. John had already consumed a huge amount of beer, multiple shots of whiskey, and Red Bull, according to the lawsuit.

Jane allegedly told university officials that she was also intoxicated, although subsequent investigation suggests she exaggerated her level of drunkenness. She claimed that she tripped on the sidewalk, stumbled over, and fell, though a witness refuted this. She also claimed a bartender served her a drink in between the house party and meeting up with John. But the bartender said that never happened.

"Upon information and belief, this testimony by Jane Doe was made in an effort to appear more incapacitated than she was that evening," according to John's lawsuit.

John and Jane began flirting—Jane "was all over me and was biting my ear," according to John—and decided to leave together. In the backseat of the car taking them home, they began making out. Jane—not John, but Jane—instructed the driver to take them both back to John's fraternity house.

When they arrived at the house, it was so crowded that they ended up heading to John's car to be alone. It was there that Jane initiated oral sex. Notably, John passed in and out of consciousness as it was happening:

As he testified, John Doe was so intoxicated that he only remembered bits and pieces of the oral sex; he stated he was blacked out for large portions of their time in the parked car, and he did not remember giving consent for the oral sex performed on him by Jane Doe. In fact, John Doe did not remember the oral sex performed on him in the parked car until he returned to the car the next morning looking for his debit card which he discovered had fallen out of his pocket.

In the eventual hearing, Jane Doe admitted to initiating the oral sex on John Doe without his consent. Further, she defined "consent" to be when she initiated the sexual activity. She also stated during the hearing that she felt she was "just giving him what [she thought] he wanted."

(Emphasis mine.) (Redditor note: "mine" means the author of the article I pasted here)

This encounter soon came to an end—John was too incapacitated to maintain an erection—and the pair ventured into the house. At this point, their accounts are hazy, confused, and contradictory. John remembered passing out in his bed and Jane telling him she was leaving. Jane remembered collapsing into a bean bag chair and waking up to discover John on top of her, wearing a condom. Her pants were pulled down. She claimed she told him to stop, he did, and she left. (Whether this actually happened is in serious dispute.)

But Jane did not go straight home. She went to another fraternity house, uninvited, and climbed into bed with an unsuspecting person. She "jumped on top of him," and he told her to leave, according to the lawsuit.

She then headed to a different bedroom, removed her shirt, and initiated oral sex on a third person. She spent the night there, and went home in the morning:

John Doe sent Jane Doe a text at 3:00 a.m. to ask if she got home safely, and she responded in the affirmative and added "all good, babe." In fact, she did not go home but was instead at the annex of the fraternity house across the street engaged in sexual activity with a fraternity member.

Who Jane sleeps with is her own business, of course. But these two other encounters are relevant, given that they establish a pattern of behavior. It certainly seems like Jane has a penchant for initiating sexual contact under circumstances that a Title IX officer might label nonconsensual.

The very next day, after piecing together the events of the previous night, Jane and a friend went to the public safety office to report John for sexual assault. She also went to the hospital to obtain a sexual assault examination, but left before any of the tests could be performed. Jane later stated that she doubted herself, asking questions like, "What am I doing?" and "What if I did consent?"

The Title IX investigation included all the familiar, horrifyingly unfair elements typical of these cases. Two officials, Mary Howell Sirna and Tricia McKinney, were tasked with handling the investigation. They decided which witnesses to interview, and—according to John—failed to interview people whose testimony would have helped John.

[Redditor note: Read the names above again. No men were assigned to the case. One of the women Mary Howell Sirna is a sexual assault prosecutor who decided to prosecute a case against a football player that was so obviously consensual, the jury found the man not guilty after only two hours of deliberation. He lost his scholarship due to his automatic suspension based solely on the accusation.]

At the actual hearing, an administrator "did not allow testimony from anyone who was with Jane Doe after she left John Doe's room on the night of the alleged incident," even though these individuals could have testified to Jane's lack of alcohol-induced incapacity.

The evidence presented by the investigators to the hearing panel consisted solely of investigators' recollections of their conversations with witnesses—no transcripts, audio, or video tapes. This proved to be a problem. John, for instance, claims he told the investigator that he woke up in the morning fully clothed and with his shoes on (casting doubt on Jane's assertions about having sex in the bean bag chair). But this detail did not appear in the report that was presented to the hearing panel. Investigator Sirna reportedly said she couldn't recall John making such a claim during their interview. Because the interview was not recorded or transcribed, there was no way to tell who was right.

Incredibly, John's state of incapacitation was held against him. "Given that… respondent claims not to recall the event, we then must turn to the evidence provided by the Complainant," wrote the investigators.

The university also took Jane's side in other ways. When officials learned that John was bringing a lawyer to the hearing, they strongly advised Jane to do so as well. Acting Dean of Students Jerry Parker personally arranged for Jane to have a lawyer, forwarded all relevant legal documents to this lawyer, and even offered to talk to the lawyer on background about Jane's case. He did all of this, despite maintaining that the university was a neutral arbiter in the matter of Jane vs. John.

But the most novel aspect of this case is the retaliation claim. Throughout the process, John became aware of the fact that he could not have consented to sex with Jane, and was therefore a victim of sexual assault. He pressed administrators to investigate this claim. They steadfastly refused to do so, on the grounds that John was retaliating against Jane.

Consider the logic of such a verdict. It suggests that in any sexual misconduct dispute, the first person to make a formal accusation has a tremendous advantage. The first accuser gains the advantage of retaliation, which prohibits university officials from properly vetting the second accuser's claims, according to Drake officials.

Despite Jane's numerous factual misstatements, and her testimony that she had initiated nonconsensual oral sex with John, John was expelled.

Exceptionally Well Written Source

The men in this country need to wake up.

callmetmrw · 10時間前

This is the Columbia Mattress Girl scandal all over again

dsfdgsggf1 · 5時間前

She Forced Him Into Sex Act

hmm, isn't there a four letter word for that? Oh right, it's called rape.

dagnart · 8時間前

She admitted she forced him into the sex act...according to the lawsuit filed by the student. In fact, I don't see any evidence presented in this article aside from assertions in the suit and statements from his father. Maybe those are true and maybe they aren't, but that is not a statement of established fact. That's an assertion by one side of a legal dispute. The court case will decide whether that assertion has merit. Conspicuously missing is any kind of investigative journalism into what evidence the school was using to justify the expulsion. There was no evidence beyond her word...according to the father. She declined a forensic examination...according to the father. People lie you know. Parents believe their kids even when those kids lie.

Vladtheimpaler14 · 10時間前

Why didn't he just use his privilege tho?

FuckCazadors · 8時間前

He should go to Josh University instead.

ehImCanadian · 8時間前

A Michigan Law Study found that men get harsher punishments compared to women in sentencing

I know cases deferer and circumstances are vastly different but even for extremly similar cases like DUI and theft from stores men get harsher punishments.

ironwolf56 · 11時間前

Another Title IX kangaroo court. I'm just old enough (I was young but a news-savvy tween I guess) to remember back during the Title IX authority expansions that started in the 90s people were warning it would come to this sort of thing; they got called things like right wing conspiracy theorists of course but...

izomiac · 4時間前

IMHO, a better title would have been "Drake University Expels Rape [Molestation?] Victim". By making it gendered we imply male & female victims/assailant ought to be considered differently.

keepitwithmine · 11時間前

I'm suprised that universities even still let male student attend.

bronxblue · 4時間前

So yeah, this title is immensely misleading. It's a claim by the son's father in a lawsuit. It may be true, it may not be. Most of the evidence put forth in this article is purely from the Trustee, and Drake disagrees and will defend it in court. What he said may very well be true and his disabled son was assaulted in this manner. But this is a far cry from proof being claimed here.

news

調停者