It began as a typical college hookup: two students at UC San Diego met at a party last year, began drinking and ended up in bed.
The
encounter snowballed into a sexual assault complaint, university
investigation and a finding that the male student should be suspended.
But the accused student fought back in court and won — marking what is believed to be the first judicial ruling
in recent years that a university failed to provide a fair trial in a
sexual misconduct case. Some legal experts said Tuesday that the finding
could have a broad national impact.
"It could have tremendous
persuasive influence on other courts," said Amy Wax, a University of
Pennsylvania law professor who, along with 15 colleagues, has raised
concerns about the rights of accused students in campus sexual assault
cases.
In the San Diego case, Superior Court Judge Joel M. Pressman found
that the accused student, identified as John Doe, was impermissibly
prevented from fully confronting and cross-examining his accuser.
The
judge also found that there was insufficient evidence to back the
university's findings that Doe had forced the accuser, identified as
Jane Roe, into sexual activity without her consent. The judge ordered UC
San Diego to drop its finding against Doe and all sanctions, including a
suspension of one year and an additional academic quarter.
The case is being watched nationally as concern has grown that the
intensified crackdown on campus sexual assault over the last few years
has at times skewed too far against those accused. Over the last four
years, the U.S. Department of Education has launched more
investigations, imposed more fines and issued more guidelines on campus
sexual assault than ever before, pressuring schools to improve what many
acknowledged were serious flaws in their handling of complaints.
But the crackdown has also raised concerns about fairness.
Last
fall, 28 Harvard Law School faculty members wrote an article
criticizing their campus procedures on sexual assault cases as lacking
"the most basic elements of fairness and due process" and
"overwhelmingly stacked against the accused." [...]
There was a recent ruling regarding columbia university that said the accused has no rights in such a case (not the mattress case) cause only the accuser and the university are parties to the case; the accused is not a party to a title IX case.
ReplyDeleteAnd the harvard case involves faculty protecting themselves (besides issues of a consentual relationship till the accuser decided to take a job in chicago, thus breaking off the massachusetts relationship.) The fact that the accuser was a student was not an issue (!)