Biased Title IX investigation costs University of Southern California $111,965

So... I thought I'd do a thread on this. Basically, Los Angeles Superior Cour Judge Elizabeth Allen White, recently ordered the University of Southern California to pay $111,965 in attorney fees after finding that a male student (referred to as "John Doe") was expelled from USC after an “improperly biased” Title IX investigation was launched against him.

The court determined that “not only was USC’s Title IX Office improperly biased against [the male student],” but also that the Title IX investigator “held an adversarial position in relation to the petitioner,” and struck down her claims of neutrality. Further, the judge determined that USC did not allow the male student to review all evidence against him, withheld contradictory information from its initial report against the male student, and failed to interview a potential first-hand witness to the alleged assault.

She also granted that bias against men likely played a role in his expulsion. According to the lawsuit, the male student and his advisor were:

Referred to as “motherf***ers” by USC Title IX Officers Gretchen Dahlinger Means and Patrick Noonan, and they in turn referred to the female student as “cute,” “intelligent,” and “a catch.” Judge White found that such remarks “demonstrate an unacceptable probability of actual bias” on the part of USC’s Title IX officers, and in USC allowing these Title IX investigators to be a “decision maker” in the case, that “institutional bias” corrupted the investigation.

According to the Campus Reform:

In the ruling against USC, Judge White also suggested that the male student’s legal efforts—which led to the finding that USC was biased against male students—may offer a significant benefit to other male students accused of a Title IX violation at USC. The male student succeeded in showing that institutional bias “exists, which will confer a benefit upon the class of persons at USC accused of violating USC's sexual misconduct policy where a Title IX investigation is conducted,” according to court documents. The student was represented by Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Eyrich, of Werksman Jackson Hathaway & Quinn LLP.

As the Campus Reform notes, USC is also under federal investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) due to a separate complaint that some of the school’s educational programs are biased against male students. I've posted about that here, short TLDR would be:

Investigation was launched in January after USC professor Kursat Christoff Pekgoz alleged that certain female only programs and scholarships exclude “male students from participation by providing opportunities for female students only.”

Source: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11101

Recently, University of Southern California has given us the report complaining about too many "white male" film critics: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/8qxcke/humour_university_of_southern_california_report/

And an interesting case, where a student was "put on trial by peers" after debating some of his peers on Facebook:

When Josh Masters, a 22-year-old USC student, posted a meme on a Facebook page suggesting people should lock their car doors when south of campus, it started a chain reaction that ultimately led him to be brought before his peers for a trial. He was accused of upsetting students by suggesting the area south of USC is unsafe, and for not backing down or apologizing when challenged on it. Master, according to the audio recordings obtained by The College Fix, was told that suggesting one might have to lock their doors when parking south of USC is racist, ignorant and problematic, and especially troubling when brought up by someone who is white. Ultimately, he was found guilty of violating his fraternity’s respect regulations for online communication and had to say he was sorry or risk being suspended or possibly kicked out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/8h0qxq/socjus_university_of_southern_california_student/