Channels, Fall 2016

Kirkpatrick • Campus Sexual Misconduct Due Process Protections Page 174 and be subject to a neutral deciding authority. If colleges are not capable of ensuring these two-sided proceedings, then cases must be directed immediately to law enforcement to be handled in an unbiased fashion. Conclusion Because of Title IX, universities face wrongful incentives to immediately convict in cases of alleged sexual assault without proper procedures to ensure fairness to all parties involved. The OCR’s authority to terminate federal funding from universities has led numerous institutions to issue erroneous sexual assault findings to avoid liability from dissatisfied complainants. As a federal judge articulated in a 2012 lawsuit, the process applied to the accused and the conduct of university officials in prosecuting such claims “offends the court’s sense of fundamental fairness and appears to fall short of the minimal moral obligation of any tribunal to respect the rights and dignity of the accused.” 39 Such unequal justice on college campuses due to Title IX must end. The current strategy for dealing with sexual misconduct on college campuses has failed miserably. Forced by the federal government to conduct trials, incompetent colleges are branding students sexual offenders regardless of whether or not those students have committed sexual violence. These campus trials are often presided over by professors and staff incapable of proceeding without bias. Fair process is vital to ensure consistent findings of accountability. So many students claiming they have been expelled because of a lack of due process show just how much damage untrue claims of sexual assault can do-- long-lasting consequences for the women making the accusations, the men wrongly accused, and all other parties involved in the injustice. While there is no debate on whether or not sexual misconduct must be confronted aggressively, it should not be handled in such a way as to strip all dignity from the accused. The recent ruling to allow John Doe’s case against Brown University to proceed is a small yet pivotal victory for the accused’s due process rights. In the case, John Doe alleges Brown University violated his due process rights and discriminated against him based on gender during a sexual misconduct investigation. 40 Universities such as Brown University are placed under enormous pressure to crack down on sexual assault and expel males from the institutions without regard to their rights. As dozens of young men are going to court to seek relief from such reputational damage due to alleged sexual assaults and subsequent expulsions, the courts will hopefully begin to see that something is truly wrong in the campus systems. Like other institutions, universities have limits; they are simply unable to impartially and effectively try cases of sexual misconduct. Due to the severity of the punishments and the stigmas ascribed to an accusation of sexual misconduct as well as how likely an erroneous finding is, a fairer system is needed to ensure the due process rights of both parties are 39 Doe v. Univ. of Mont., Case 9:12-cv-00077-DLC (D. Mont. 2012) 40 See Doe v. Brown University