Lawsuit -- Student Bragged About Sleeping With Athletes, Then Got Them Expelled For Rape

From The Daily Caller:

A new lawsuit against the University of Findlay accuses the school of expelling students after rape allegations from a student who had bragged about sleeping with them.

Justin Brown and Alphonso Baity are both former student-athletes at the University of Findlay, a small private college in Ohio. Both of them were expelled after a female student, identified only as “M.K.”, accused them of raping her in September 2014.

But in their lawsuit, Brown and Baity say there are many witnesses who said their sexual encounter with M.K. was consensual, and that further evidence came from the accuser herself.
.........................

Ten days later, though, M.K. allegedly changed her tune, and filed a sexual assault claim with the university. At that point, Findlay began what the lawsuit calls a “sham” investigation lasting less than a day.

Read the whole article, this looks like another case or regret=rape.

Brown University student sues his accuser for defamation.

From Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner via H/T at Instapundit:

We should see more lawsuits like this. False accusers should be named and punished.

At some point during the party, the two began a lengthy conversation, and as the party ended, they began kissing. “The couple continued their intimate conversation and public displays of affection among a group of mutual friends in another dormitory room down the hall,” John’s complaint says. At some point Jane texted her friends that she might be about to “hook up” with John.

The two decided to go back to John’s dorm, and once there, continued kissing and touching each other on John’s bed. John says Jane was an active, willing participant who “passionately” kissed John’s neck, leaving a hickey. John’s lawsuit claims Jane “expressed her consent and pleasure” with the sexual activity and at no time did she “express in actions or words that she was uncomfortable or withdrawing her consent.”

Jane said she did not want to have sex that night, and John said okay, but the two continued kissing. John escalated the sexual touching and asked Jane: “Do you like this?” The lawsuit says Jane nodded her head and said “yes.”

John then says that Jane guided his hand and told her what she wanted him to do. Jane then stood up and said again that she didn’t want to have sex, that she had to go meet a friend she had previously agreed to meet, but that she would see John again at her birthday party the next day.

John says Jane kissed him goodbye and left his room.

“In the week that followed, John Doe was unaware that Jane Doe considered herself the victim of sexual assault,” the lawsuit says.

John’s lawsuit suggests that Jane made the accusation against him after he didn’t talk to her at her birthday party the next day.

John is suing his accuser for defamation based on statements she made to other students at Brown that were false. The people she made the claims to would later testify on her behalf. Some of the false statements included her claim that she was “covered in bruises” despite claiming in future statements that she was only attacked on her lip and neck (which had no bruises according to Facebook photos and a medical report).

Like I said ...................

Once the accusation is proved to be false, she is no longer a victim, I agree she should be named AND punished.

Moving the Goalposts -- What Feminist ‘Rape Culture’ Discourse Is About

From The Other McCain:

American women are now less at risk of rape than at any time in the past 40 years, and the emergence of a frantic hysteria about ‘rape culture’ on college campuses therefore seems contradictory — unless you understand how feminist theory ‘problematizes’ heterosexuality
........................

What Filipovic describes as feminist ‘disenchantment with the “No means no” framework’ amounts to an admission that the recent rhetorical fury about ‘rape culture’ is actually an attempt to move the goalposts, in such a way as to criminalize normal male sexual behavior. The confusion created by so-called ‘affirmative consent’ policies (also known as ‘yes means yes’) is understandable because most people would be shocked senseless if they stopped to consider what it actually means.
........................

Filipovic’s suggestion of ‘a different social model’ as the basis for a legal standard where men are deemed guilty of rape if a woman later says did not consent ‘enthusiastically’ raises the question of how such a standard could be enforced. Preventing rape is a laudable goal, but that’s not Filipovic’s goal. Her goal is to make men responsible for women’s post-coital regret.

As usual, in the feminist world's view, "It's the man's fault" for everything.

Why Any Male Student Should Think Twice Before Applying to Washington & Lee University

From Hans A. von Spakovsky at PJ Media:

This should terrify any parent whose son is about to head off to college or is presently matriculating anywhere in the Ivory Towers of academia.

The fundamental lack of due process and oppressive tactics used by university administrators at Washington & Lee University (W&L) should lead any family to keep their sons from applying to the university. Male students at Washington & Lee risk serious consequences if they engage in an entirely consensual sexual relationship with a female student who later is convinced to “regret” what she did, or who becomes jealous if the male student starts a relationship with someone else. That is exactly what happened in this case.
...........................

The facts show that what occurred was not only entirely consensual, but that Jane was more than just a willing participant. Jane continued to go to parties at John’s fraternity, where witnesses saw them interacting in an entirely unremarkable, normal manner. That is, until Jane saw John kissing another female “and left the party early, upset.” It became “public knowledge” that John and this other female “were an exclusive couple.”

Jane subsequently spent a summer break “working at a women’s clinic that dealt with sexual assault issues.”
...........................

Jane got upset when she applied for a study abroad program in Nepal and saw that John was also one of the applicants.  She talked to a “therapist” on the “evolution about how she felt about” her sexual encounters with John. Most significantly, she attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX compliance officer, Lauren Kozak, on her article “Is it Possible That There Is Something In Between Consensual Sex and Rape … And That It Happens To Almost Every Girl Out There?”  Ms. Kozak’s thesis is that “regret equals rape”; that even if a sexual encounter is entirely consensual, if the woman later regrets what she did, the sexual encounter was actual rape. Jane then filed a sexual assault claim against John that was investigated by — you guessed it — Lauren Kozak.
...........................

The Dean of W&L, Tammi Simpson, told John that if he transferred to another school he would not be formally charged, a bizarre tactic to take for someone supposedly concerned about sexual assault. When he refused, John was formally charged and a hearing was held.
...........................

Jane Doe’s testimony was full of inconsistencies. Early in the hearing, she described John as “disrespectful, dishonorable, and having treated her as though she was worthless.” But when asked later in the hearing what kind of connection she had with John, “she said that it was great and [John] was smart, interesting, sweet, and genuinely interested in her.” The tribunal, however, “did not question Jane Doe about these inconsistencies.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence of consensual sex, Jane’s inconsistent and conflicting claims, and the blatant falseness of the claim made against John, he was expelled from W&L by a vote of 3 to 1. No explanation was given for the decision, other than the claim that the preponderance of the evidence showed John did not have effective consent. John’s appeal to the University Board of Appeals lost by a 2 to 1 vote, again without any detailed explanation.
...........................
However, the court refused to dismiss John’s claim under Title IX. In this case, the judge held that John has produced sufficient facts to “cast doubt on the accuracy of the outcome reached in the proceeding against him.” John’s allegations, taken as true, “suggest that W&L’s disciplinary procedures, at least when it comes to charges of sexual misconduct, amount to ‘a practice of railroading accused students.’”

In fact, under the totality of the circumstances shown by John, “including the alleged flaws in the proceedings and statements made by W&L officials, [John] has plausibly established a causal link between his expulsion and gender bias.”  Specifically, a reasonable jury could find that ”[b]ias on the part of Ms. Kozak [caused] the outcome of John Doe’s disciplinary hearing due to the considerable influence she appears to have wielded in those proceedings.” Further, given the pressure W&L was under from the government to convict male students of sexual assault, “a reasonable fact finder could plausibly determine that [John] was wrongly found responsible for sexual misconduct and that this erroneous finding was motivated by gender bias.”

This case is not over even though it should be. The court’s refusal to grant W&L’s motion to dismiss the case means it will go to trial — unless W&L’s lawyers are smart enough to convince the university to pay John a very large settlement.  Because given the facts as related in Judge Moon’s order, John Doe has a very good chance of beating W&L at trial. It appears highly likely that a jury will determine that W&L administrators conducted a one-sided, discriminatory, and unjust hearing of the allegations lodged against John Doe.

The more I read about this case, one, I'm not surprised about the railroading process, but I am just sickened about what the people who run Universities are teaching our youth.

I would take his warning one step further. Go to a public university. The Judge dismissed two claims, "violation of his right to due process because the Fifth Amendment applies to a private university like W&L only under very limited circumstances. It also dismissed his state law contract claim because the university code did not constitute a contract in Virginia law." That way,, these two claim will not be dismissed.

Remember, punch back twice as hard.