Don’t Let the BDS Bullies Win

Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson draws our attention to a new petition protesting the academic boycott of Israel. The petition, which is directed towards academics, university staff, and trustees, argues that the BDS movement is at odds with crucial academic  values. In particular, the petition draws attention to the fabrications of BDS movement and its attempt to undermine academic freedom. Jacobson provides some important context:

The short version is that anti-Zionist, anti-Israel academic activists for years have maneuvered to take over professional organizations in order to bring the war against Israel home to campuses. Their biggest success to date is the ASA, but they continue their efforts elsewhere.

The loudest mouths get all the attention, while the majority of people in academia who do not support academic boycotts (of Israel or any other nation) mostly go about their business and watch from the sidelines.

To that end, Jacobson directs his readers to sign the petition. Shouldn’t you sign it, too?

A Promising Sign for Campus Due Process

Is the tide turning against political efforts to stem campus assault? E. Everett Bartlett, the head of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), just sent out an email that quoted prominent liberals displeased with recent federal and state initiatives:

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sept. 7:

“I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights. And then … I think this part of the [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”

Robin Koerner, Huffington Post, Sept. 8:

“The Californian bill would make the majority of such normal encounters punishable. Were this rule to be generalized beyond California’s educational institutions, then most men who’ve ever engaged in sex would be deemed guilty of having engaged in non-consensual sex.”

Velma Montoya, former chair of the California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sept. 9:

With the “Obama administration ordering colleges to determine responsibility using the ‘more likely than not’ standard of proof…students would be wise to learn their Constitutional rights. All members of campus disciplinary panels bring their own prejudices to the process, and in the case of administrators, a bias toward keeping their high-salaried jobs by satisfying their campus political bases.”

Continue reading

Yale Muslims: Hurt Feelings but No Arguments

As Lauren Noble wrote two days ago here at Minding the Campus, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s speech at Yale on Monday night was a success, despite the discomfort felt by the Yale Muslim Students Association (MSA).

I say “discomfort” because that is what the MSA itself emphasized in its September 10th letter to the Yale community protesting her visit.  Hearing about the invitation to Ali, a resolute critic of Islam, the MSA drafted this nine-paragraph statement and posted it on Facebook, and it circulated quickly throughout Yale and the conservative media.  The tone and content are worth examining because they mark the most illustrative aspect of the whole affair.

Continue reading

DePauw Punishment Halted in Sex Case

In the fifth consecutive decision on behalf of due process rights for an accused student (joining Xavier, St. Joe’s, Duke, and Marlboro College), Judge William Lawrence, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a preliminary injunction preventing DePauw University from proceeding with a two-semester suspension for sexual assault meted out to a student named Ben King.

Judge Lawrence’s decision was unusually comprehensive, but DePauw’s handling of this case was unusually bad. You can read King’s filing here; DePauw’s response here; and Judge Lawrence’s decision here.

No Memory of the Event

By now, the specifics of the DePauw case will sound familiar. Last December, King attended a party of around 30 students, most of whom (including the accuser and the accused) appear to have had a lot to drink. The two went back to King’s room, where some type of sexual contact (but not intercourse) occurred. According to King, he asked the accuser if she consented to sexual activity, and she said yes. (The accuser says that she doesn’t remember one way or the other.) Two days later, the accuser spoke to DePauw’s Title IX coordinator, claiming the sexual contact was non-voluntary. The coordinator interviewed King. After no action, nearly five weeks later the accuser said she wanted to pursue charges.

DePauw has an agreement that it forwards the results of all campus sexual assault investigations to the local prosecutor. “Not surprisingly,” Judge Lawrence noted, under these terms King declined to be interviewed by the campus investigator after being warned of his Miranda rights. Consider this (quite unusual) practice for a moment: the university effectively functions as a local police force, but without any of the due process protections or investigative training associated with a police inquiry.

The university’s “investigation” consisted of interviews with the accuser and party witnesses recommended by the accuser (several of her sorority sisters). Reflecting what it termed its “even-handed approach” to campus claims of sexual assault, DePauw defended its decision to confine its inquiry in this manner, since interviewing all the people at the party, including neutral students, would not have been “an efficient use of limited resources.”

As often occurs in such cases, the DePauw inquiry revolved around the accuser’s level of intoxication. One of the accuser’s roommates said that the accuser said she was “fine” and “did not sound too drunk.” Another roommate recalled that she “seemed very coherent and [was] speaking clearly” and “was not showing any typical signs of intoxication.” Three other witnesses, members of the fraternity, said they didn’t know the accuser sufficiently to determine her level of intoxication.

But a sorority sister suggested that the accuser was behaving atypically. How so? She was praising her sorority, though typically she “wants everyone to make their own decision” about the merits of which sorority to choose. (How King would have known this behavior indicated intoxication isn’t clear.) And a second student told the campus investigator that the accuser was “very intoxicated.”

All four of these witnesses spoke to an investigator between 47 and 54 days after the party in question. It seems highly unlikely that the typical college student can make an intoxication diagnosis about someone else seven or eight weeks after a party at which each of these students, too, was consuming alcohol.

A Married Couple Involved

DePauw nonetheless moved forward with the case. The hearing occurred 12 days after the investigation ended. At the hearing, consistent with DePauw’s policies, King was denied the right to an attorney—so as to avoid “undue judicialization” of university affairs. Meanwhile, the accuser’s hearing “advocate” was married to the school’s Title IX coordinator—a figure who supplied a supposedly neutral summary of the case at the hearing, but instead appears to have impeached King. DePauw deemed the relationship between the accuser’s advocate and a supposedly neutral key factual witness “immaterial” to the outcome of the case. After all, the school breezily mused, “in a university setting, prior contact among the faculty and students is likely”—even if, of course, marriage between two such parties is not.

In an unintentional commentary on why academics should not conduct criminal investigations, the hearing appears to have consisted mostly of DePauw’s panel asking witnesses how drunk they were (on a scale of 1 to 10) and how drunk the accuser was (on a scale of 1 to 10). Three of the four key witnesses were consistent with their written testimony, but the fourth (the accuser’s roommate who had said she sounded “fine” and “did not sound too drunk”) now rated the accuser as an 8-level of intoxication. “But,” she added, “because I was intoxicated as well, I might have not known for sure.” The record gives no indication of the hearing panel questioning this student on why her panel testimony differed from her written statement.

King did testify during the hearing. Demonstrating the impossibility of proving “affirmative consent,” he said that the accuser verbally consented—repeatedly—to having sexual contact. He nonetheless was found guilty and expelled, on grounds that the accuser was intoxicated and could not have given consent. On appeal, the university reduced the penalty to a two-semester suspension with possible re-admission, provided King demonstrated an “understanding of the issues raised by his interaction with” the accuser.

King then sued. Incredibly, DePauw cited “academic freedom” as justification for both its actions and as a reason for the court not to make an “unwarranted imposition” into university affairs. Pointing to the White House task force report, the university also argued that it was appropriate to give the accuser “some control” over the investigation (ostensibly for privacy reasons).

The Preliminary Injunction

In line with the ruling in the St. Joe’s case, Judge Lawrence rejected King’s Title IX claim, arguing (unpersuasively, given the gender politics of this issue nationally) that DePauw didn’t discriminate against King on basis of his gender. But Judge Lawrence nonetheless granted a preliminary injunction, arguing that DePauw violated its contract (the university bulletin) with King. Indeed, the judge concluded, the university deemed King a rapist even though there was “very little evidence that supports this conclusion.”

Judge Lawrence was particularly skeptical of how DePauw (and, though he probably didn’t know it, most universities) defined intoxication for the purpose of branding students a rapist. He reasoned that the accuser probably was intoxicated. But King (who didn’t know the accuser that well) had no way of knowing that she was intoxicated, since her behavior (however atypical for her) was hardly atypical of a college student at a party. In any event, the fact that the accuser was intoxicated was (or at least should have been) irrelevant to the outcome. As Judge Lawrence observed, the university’s sexual assault policy bars sexual activity with someone who is incapacitated, not someone who is intoxicated, even enough “to have lost her normal inhibitions.” (Of course, if DePauw wants to change its definition of rape, it can do so, but not retroactively to punish King.) Indeed, DePauw’s policy goes out of its way to deem incapacitation “an important and specific concept.” By contrast, the policy doesn’t mention the word “intoxication.”

Lawrence’s ruling raised a number of other procedural matters that seemed to lean in King’s favor. The very substantial delay in initiating the inquiry, especially given the sole subject of the hearing (the accuser’s intoxication level), meant that for “most of the witnesses the night in question was likely just another Friday night on campus, so there was little reason to remember specific details.” DePauw, for reasons the school didn’t explain, denied King’s request to delay the hearing a week to better prepare his defense, even as the school allowed the accuser to wait more than a month to file charges. Nor did the school worry about the conflict of interest between the Title IX coordinator and her spouse, the curious “ranking-system” questioning of the student witnesses on intoxication level, or the decision to focus only on witnesses supplied by the accuser. Indeed, in oral argument, the school’s attorney said the university was “proud” of the way it handled the inquiry in this case. Prospective DePauw students should take notice.

Finally, Judge Lawrence concluded that the preliminary injunction would serve the public interest, since the public has an interest in seeing DePauw’s policies applied fairly to both complainants and [emphasis added] respondents in disciplinary actions.”

The university, obviously, disagrees with this interpretation of fairness.

Hirsi Ali at Yale—A Rare Victory for Free Speech

Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke at Yale Monday to a packed auditorium of more than 300 people, with hundreds more turned away due to lack of space, and received many standing ovations. The speech’s success was especially heartening in light of the Yale Muslim Students Association’s (MSA) efforts to block it.

When the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale announced the lecture, one of MSA’s representatives, Abrar Omeish, initially requested that we disinvite Ms. Hirsi Ali. Told no, she asked if the Buckley Program would “be willing to have another speaker offer an alternative perspective that is more representative and qualified in the discussion.” Another suggestion was to restrain Ms. Hirsi Ali from discussing Islam.

Continue reading