By David French
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
Whenever I read a court opinion describing a campus
sexual-assault proceeding, I routinely find myself shocked at the staggering
unfairness and ridiculous bias of campus kangaroo courts. Driven by the need to
find more men guilty — and rationalized by a #BelieveWomen ideology — campus
administrators have systematically discarded every fundamental notion of due
process in American law.
Across the nation, courts on the right and on the left
are saying no. They’re blocking biased sexual-assault adjudications, protecting
basic fairness, and restoring a degree of sanity to colleges’ procedures. On
Friday it was the turn of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to protect the
Fourteenth Amendment, and an all-woman panel, led by Judge Amy Coney Barrett, established
a precedent that could be used against woke college administrators
nationwide.
The facts of the case are extraordinary. After a female
college student accused her ex-boyfriend of groping her in her sleep, Purdue
University conducted an investigation and adjudication so amateurish and biased
that it’s frankly difficult to imagine that human adults could believe it was
fair or adequate. The plaintiff (John Doe) alleged that he was “not provided
with any of the evidence on which decisionmakers relied in determining his
guilt and punishment,” his ex-girlfriend didn’t even appear before the hearing
committee, he had “no opportunity to cross-examine” his accuser, the committee
found his accuser credible even though it did not talk to her in person, the
accuser did not even write her own statement or provide a sworn allegation, and
the committee did not allow the plaintiff “to present any evidence, including
witnesses.”
After that farce of a process, Purdue found the student
guilty and suspended him for a year. The suspension meant the automatic loss of
the student’s Navy ROTC scholarship and expulsion from the ROTC program.
Incredibly, the lower court dismissed the student’s claims. He appealed to the
Seventh Circuit, and a unanimous panel resurrected his lawsuit.
Judge Barrett was unsparing in her criticism of the
university’s procedures. In perhaps the most telling critique, she noted that
Purdue’s process, with its permanent, devastating consequences for the
student’s career, “fell short of what even a high school must provide to a
student facing a days-long suspension.” Withholding evidence from the plaintiff
by itself was sufficient to render the process unfair. So was the failure to
provide any means of meaningfully examining the accuser’s credibility. As
Barrett wrote, the evidence suggests that the committee “decided that John was
guilty based on the accusation rather than the evidence.”
But that’s not the truly important part of the opinion.
The plaintiff alleged that Purdue’s procedures were so inadequate and so
engineered to obtain guilty findings that they violate Title IX by
discriminating against men. The Seventh Circuit found that the plaintiff did
present enough evidence of anti-male discrimination to proceed with his claim,
and part of that evidence was the university’s own wokeness.
The decision-makers adopted a formal #BelieveWomen
approach, deciding that the accuser was credible without actually hearing
from her. Judge Barrett found this “perplexing” and concluded that “it is
plausible that Sermersheim and her advisors chose to believe Jane because she
is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man.” Barrett continued:
The plausibility of that inference
is strengthened by a post that CARE [the university center dedicated to
supporting victims of sexual assault] put up on its Facebook page during the
same month that John was disciplined: an article from The Washington Post
titled “Alcohol isn’t the cause of campus sexual assault. Men are.” Construing
reasonable inferences in John’s favor, this statement, which CARE advertised to
the campus community, could be understood to blame men as a class for the
problem of campus sexual assault rather than the individuals who commit sexual
assault. And it is pertinent here that Bloom, CARE’s director, wrote the letter
regarding Jane to which Sermersheim apparently gave significant weight.
To put it bluntly, Judge Barrett’s opinion is a warning
shot to campuses in her federal circuit — and, through persuasive authority, to
campuses across the nation. Universities mix ideology and adjudication at their
own peril. Yet mixing ideology and adjudication is the virtual mission
statement of campus Title IX offices. Plaintiffs hunting for evidence of
official hostility against men will find a target-rich environment.
The Obama administration’s mandatory rejection of due
process — and the academy’s wholesale embrace of fundamentally anti-male
ideology — has resulted in one of the more dispiriting illiberal chapters in
recent American history. But judicial defense of due process has been
heartening to see. In fact, the judicial response to college misconduct is even
more consequential than the Trump administration’s (admirable) rejection of
Obama’s guidance. After all, judicial opinions endure through any change in
administrations and will bind universities long after Trump is gone. And now
one of the judiciary’s brightest new stars has made her own contribution to the
constitutional order. Plaintiffs should seize this opportunity to bury campus
bias once and for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment