New Title IX regulation must bring an end to widespread anti-male bias in college kangaroo courts

Many persons are surprised to learn that the number of men and women who are victims of sexual assault is nearly identical.

Each year, 1.270 million women experience non-consensual sex, compared to the 1.267 million men who are made to sexually penetrate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

Despite this fact, campus activists have spawned a pervasive narrative of male aggressors who sexually exploit hapless women.  As a result, colleges have implemented Title IX policies and training programs that are biased against male students, resulting in hundreds of males being suspended or expelled on allegations of sexual misconduct.

So what happens when the female is the sexual aggressor?  A recent decision involving Michigan State University reveals the interesting dynamic.

Two MSU students, whom we'll refer to as John Doe and Jane Roe, met in late 2017.  On Feb. 23, 2018, Jane attended a party at Doe's fraternity.  Although some alcohol was consumed, neither of the two became incapacitated.

Afterward, Roe adjourned with Doe to Doe's dormitory room, and the two soon found themselves clad only in their underwear.  The man did not initiate any sexual activity and only reciprocated what Roe initiated, such as mutual kissing and touching.

From that point on, however, the dynamic shifted as the female became the sexual initiator.

First, Roe removed Doe's underwear.  Then she performed oral sex on the man.  Roe next positioned herself on top of him, as if to simulate sexual intercourse.  Amidst all her gyrations, his penis slightly penetrated her vagina.

Given that Roe was the sexual aggressor and did not seek the man's consent to engage in sexual activity, Doe had a strong basis to file a sexual misconduct complaint against the woman.  But the male-as-perpetrator narrative has become so deeply embedded in the consciousness of college students and administrators that filing a complaint probably didn't cross his mind.

As so often happens in these cases, it was Roe who filed the Title IX complaint, inexplicably claiming that Doe had sexually assaulted her.

Following a "victim-centered" investigation — which by definition presumes the guilt of the accused — the male was suspended for two years.

Fully realizing the devious machinations of the MSU kangaroo court, Doe engaged the law firm Nesenoff & Miltenberg to file a lawsuit against Michigan State.

Among other things, Doe claimed:

  1. College officials did not give Doe adequate notice and details about the allegation, suggesting the investigation was tainted by sex bias and a presumption of his guilt.
  2. One of the lead investigators had a background as a sex crime prosecutor.  As a result, he approached the case from a prosecutorial stance rather than as a neutral fact-finder.
  3. The accused man was not offered a live hearing or an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, despite a 2017 court decision against the University of Cincinnati holding that colleges are required to allow for cross-examination.

Given the numerous and egregious due process violations by MSU, Judge Janet Neff ruled in favor of John Doe.  And last week, Michigan State agreed to a confidential settlement that likely involved a payment in the high six figures.

The embarrassing MSU saga is not unique.  To date, 44 judicial decisions have been issued against colleges, large and small, finding institutional sex bias against the male student.  These institutions include the University of Denver, the University of Minnesota, the University of Arizona, UCLA, and many others.

This is important because in 2020, a new Title IX sex discrimination regulation went into effect designed to restore campus due process and eliminate anti-male bias.

But sadly, candidate Joe Biden promised a "quick end" to this historic regulation, suggesting that due process is somehow incompatible with the notion of fairness for complainants.  So the Biden administration set out to develop a whole new Title IX policy.

The new regulation reportedly will reduce due process protections, expand definitions of sexual harassment to the point of infringing on free speech, and redefine "sex" to include "sexual orientation and gender identity."

But several groups have rallied against the upcoming policy, including 15 attorneys general26 right-of-center organizations, and 82 leading professors and attorneys.

As a result, the Department of Education announced last week its decision to postpone the release of the new Title IX regulation in order to rework its provisions.

"Due process" is enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  This amendment was ratified in 1868 after 360,000 Union male soldiers gave up their lives fighting in the Civil War.  The amendment was enacted over outrage at the "Black Codes" that were being enacted throughout the South to keep ex-slaves from enjoying their full civil rights.

Due process includes timely notification of allegations, an impartial investigation, a fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence — protections that were notably absent in the Michigan State case.  Now the federal Department of Education must do its utmost to ensure the lessons of history are not forgotten, so all students can partake of their constitutionally guaranteed due process rights.

Edward Bartlett is the president of SAVE, a non-profit organization working for campus fairness and due process.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com