Crosspost "[SocJus] They were both drunk. He digitally penetrated her. The university suspended her for sexual assault" from /r/KotakuInAction:

So, The University of Concinnati is being sued for violating a student’s due process rights in a Title IX proceeding. "Jane Roe" claims that the university refused to open an investigation into the male student who accused her of wrongdoing, despite her allegation that his actions were the same as hers while they were both drunk. She’s seeking a preliminary injunction against the university so that she can “finish school and maintain her ROTC scholarship pending the resolution of this matter," according to the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, Roe alleged that she went home with “John Doe” after a party on September 30, 2017, where both of them had drank heavily. She portrays Doe as the initiator for their activities, first kissing her, then removing her shirt and finally digitally penetrating her. He declined to go any further when she asked, saying he didn't want his roomates to hear their sexual activity. They went to sleep, and Doe filed a Title IX complaint against her the on October 2, 2017.

The suit claims that Doe was "motiviated" to accuse Roe because she had previously filed a Title IX complaint against his friend. Doe himself should have been investigated for sexual misconduct because Roe told Title IX investigator Caitlin Wells she didn’t want to leave Doe’s apartment because she was drunk. Wells also had witness statements testifying to Roe’s intoxication.

According to The College Fix, Engel’s (her lawyer's) filing notes that the university has been a frequent defendant in litigation alleging that it botched sexual assault investigations in recent years, as well as the target of two ongoing Department of Education Title IX investigations. It also points out that several federal courts have recently blocked schools from punishing students accused of sexual misconduct when they alleged their due process rights were violated, including three Ohio lawsuits:

"These cases all represent situations where students who had credible evidence that a school employed an unfair or discriminatory disciplinary process has demonstrated sufficient facts to warrant the issuance of equitable relief on either a preliminary or permanent basis."

Roe’s specific claim against the University of Cincinnati is violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, that the university “has treated her differently from others similarly situated without a rational basis for doing so.” Further, she claims that the University of Cincinnati may have discriminated against her as a woman precisely because it is “facing litigation from male students accusing the school of imposing discipline in a discriminatory manner.” According to the lawsuit, the treatment and discipline imposed on the woman amounted to “slut-shaming.” It defines the term as “the act of criticizing a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity.”

Source: http://archive.fo/zJPCp

Posted by ScatterYouMonsters | 11 May 2018 | Link