LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
I hope this school is sued until it can't even fucking afford to remain open.
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/man...ets-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/2565978
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 university 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 university refused to reopen Doe's case.
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.
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/man...ets-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/2565978
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 university 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 university refused to reopen Doe's case.
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.
