Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 163 Campus Sexual Misconduct Due Process Protections Christina Kirkpatrick History and Government — Cedarville University Introduction n August 7, 2014, a male freshman (under the pseudonym John Doe) who had previously been expelled from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst for sexual misconduct filed a civil complaint alleging that the university had deprived him of his rights to due process and equal protection on the basis on his sex. 1 Among other things, he claimed that the university failed to allow him to hire a lawyer, cross examine his accuser, or gather evidence in his defense. He contended that the university hurriedly found him guilty of sexual misconduct, following their pattern of discriminating against males in sexual assault cases. His case serves as a typical example of the routine murkiness involved when universities determine what constitutes consensual sex and impose sanctions on those whom they deem guilty. According to John Doe’s complaint, he was at a party (where alcohol was present) on September 13, 2013 during which a female (under the pseudonym Jane Doe) approached him and gave him her phone number. Jane Doe spoke in a coherent and intelligible manner, even demonstrating correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation in her later texts. She texted her roommate to reserve her bedroom to bring back John Doe, and (according to John Doe) she gave him verbal consent to proceed sexually. The next day, however, Jane Doe told friends she could not remember what had happened the previous night. After her friends’ urging, she filed a written complaint with the university, which produced a typical ‘he-said, she-said’ situation for the administrators. The university found John Doe guilty of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and community living standards violations and expelled him from the university. He was effectively thwarted from transferring to another university even though no police report was ever filed by Jane Doe. During the proceedings, the university ordered that John Doe have no contact with Jane Doe and banned him from campus for all purposes other than attending class. He had less than eight hours to pack his belongings and was then forced to live at his family’s home two hours away while commuting to class each day. Several different university officials then gathered evidence, none of whom had the proper training to deal with sexual misconduct or the effects of alcohol consumption. The university did not provide him with all relevant documents related to the case, nor did it allow him to ask questions of his accuser. He alleged that during the hearing on November 5, 2013, the chairperson was rude to him throughout, constantly interrupting him and belittling his answers. In contrast, he alleged 1 Doe v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst , No. 14-30143 (D. Mass. 2014) O