JMU’s War on Men

James Madison -- now rolling in his grave
James Madison — now rolling in his grave

“John Doe,” accused of sexually assaulting a classmate at James Madison University, has filed a lawsuit accusing the university administration of denying him due process. He had sex with “Jane Roe” on multiple occasions, then, after she spotted him with another woman, she charged that the first time they had sex had been non-consensual on the grounds that she had been incapacitated, i.e. drunk, at the time. After reviewing the evidence, a three-person panel cleared John Doe of sexual misconduct. But the administration initiated a second hearing culminating with his suspension from the university for five-and-a-half years. Now Judge Elizabeth Dillon with the federal district court of Western Virginia has ruled that his lawsuit can proceed. Read the account in the blog here.

My question is this: Has JMU’s administration embraced radical feminist ideology so tightly that it has tossed out all notions of due process in order to achieve a politically correct result? Or does JMU fear retaliation from the Obama administration if it shows insufficient resolve in combating the supposed “epidemic of rape” on its campus? My hunch is it’s a little bit of both. Meanwhile, no one dares address the real problem: a student culture of widespread drunken and promiscuous sex in which women conduct themselves with appallingly poor judgment and men with crass selfishness.


Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


21 responses to “JMU’s War on Men”

  1. Due process is hard to achieve. It requires codified rules (constitutions and laws, for example), trained and certified advocates for the parties to the dispute, experienced judges, an appeals process, years of publicly available case history, etc. Only the combined arrogance of the federal government and college administrators could conceive of real due process coming from the various forms of kangaroo courts they institute to dispense it.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    there are some issues here, no question but where were the “defenders” when folks like this got their “due process”?

    ” A man twice convicted of rape and murder in a 1980s Newport News case that turned on bite mark comparisons has been exonerated by DNA evidence, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said Wednesday.

    Keith Allen Harward, 60, is serving life in prison plus 65 years. DNA tests done within the last year point instead to his former shipmate aboard the USS Carl Vinson, a man who died 10 years ago in an Ohio prison.

    “It is clear that Keith Harward is innocent,” Herring said.”

    this man was not “expelled” from college. He was put in prison and yet the folks at Reason had little to say about due process for this guy.

    So here’s me view. If an organization has – over the years – been concerned about due process for all people regardless of circumstances – I give them credence and credit.

    However, if an organization has such a narrow focus on “due process” that they ignore virtually all others except for a small select group – that did not go to prison .. then I do wonder what their real agenda is – because clearly it’s not “due process” per se.

    all wrongs should be righted – no question – but “wrongs” that are conflated and embedded in a political ideology are problematical because the view of the “wrong” seems to not shared by all parties and the difference revolves on much more than simple due process.

    in the case of people actually imprisoned, there is no such ideology in play -it’s much more a true miscarriage of justice…

    as I said – when any organization takes on ALL due process wrongs REGARDLESS of politics – I accord them credence .. when an organization is really based on ideology and “uses” such issues as part of it’s tactics and weaponry – not so much.

    1. Cville Resident Avatar
      Cville Resident

      I agree.

      One interesting thing about the sudden interest in “due process” for male students at universities….Virginia criminal defense attorneys and public defenders have been harping about the pittance paid by the state to defend the indigent. For instance, Virginia pays a whopping $112 to court appointed attorneys to defend a misdemeanor. That’s right. No matter how much time it takes the attorney to prepare a misdemeanor case, they’re capped at $112.

      If someone truly supports “due process”, then they would also be advocating for massive increases in state funding for defense counsel. But interestingly, so many General Assembly Republicans (who also like to rant about the lack of “due process” for males in universities) can never find the money to increase funding for defense counsel.

      “Hypocrisy is the homage that virtue pays to vice.” Wilde

      1. I suppose you could flip it around. Where are the people who support due process for the poor when it comes to kangaroo courts administered by colleges and universities? They can’t defend the indefensible kangaroo courts, but they can’t bring themselves to attack them either. So they deflect by bringing up a superficially parallel issue. “Hey, look, a squirrel!”

      2. Who opposes due process for any students? The colleges don’t even try to provide due process. There is no attempt. Look at the JMU case at hand. A hearing was held and the accused was found to have not done anything wrong. The administration didn’t like the outcome and suspended the young man anyway.

        I have personally opposed the death penalty for decades based on a belief that numerous groups of Americans don’t get due process. I also oppose lengthy sentences given out for non-violent crimes for the same reason.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    well if folks are more than content to stand by and watch innocent people jailed for decades or put to death even what’s a slap on the wrist for some drunken college kid, eh?

    where are the “concerned” for the “rights” of the college kid when they were strapping some poor schmuck onto a table to be killed because prosecutors KNOWINGLY ignored evidence that exonerated him?

    NOw if the SAME folks who are so worried about the College Kid were also at least equally worried about imprisoning and killing the innocent who had also been denied due process, than I’ll consider a mea culpa but I suspect given the politics – that some of those folks actually support “tough” penalties for “criminals”, and if a few mistakes are made.. oh well…. eh?

  4. CrazyJD Avatar

    These are some of the most information-free posts that I’ve seen on this blog. Jim is the only one who has it right, partly because he doesn’t wander far afield to incorporate every ill in the criminal justice system; he doesn’t bring in these stupid moral equivalence arguments that you guys like to engage in.
    Oh, and Cville… Your information is about 10 years old . It went from $112 to $120 some years ago. They even have fee cap waivers so you can get paid more than the $120, or $445 in the case of a felony that has 20 years or less maximum. It still doesn’t amount to crap. But as we’ve seen here recently, folks with criminal convictions are not exactly a favored group…unless they are because they make a big headline. It’s been known for years that bite mark testimony is pure bullshit, along with blood spatter, shoe print, tire tread evidence and psych testimony about sexually violent predators.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    re “known for years”

    and not a word from those now “concerned” about due process for drunk college guys?

    I’d say it’s not moral equivalence at all but rather a total disconnect on proportionality.

    if you have cred on due process for those on death row and you also lend your support to these college kids – then that’s a powerful argument.

    but if you’re a right wing think wacko-bird outfit with your fingers in every political food fight you can involve yourself in and suddenly you’re concerned about due-process – it has a hollow ring.

    here go read for yourself – Reason Policy areas:

    where is the “due process” stuff?

    Jim has a bee in his bonnet about the college issue. Of all the wrongs going on in our society – this has to be one of the few involving the “rights” of snot nose brats of well off parents getting themselves into stupid self-made quandaries… and why it captures the due-process sensibilities of the right and Jim is a mystery.

    how many non-college guys got sent to jail or executed over false rape accusations and how many on these “right” think tanks fought for their innocence?

    1. CrazyJD Avatar

      >>”total disconnect on proportionality.”

      And of course, that’s not just the flip side of moral equivalency? Gimme a break.
      The best that can be said for your argument is something like: “And when they came for the Communists, I said nothing, for I was not a Communist. And when they came for the Jews, I was not a Jew, and so I said nothing…etc.”

      As C’ville points out, it is your beloved state that causes the inequities of which you speak, and not otherwise. When you pay someone $445 to defend a serious felony, you beg for a bad result.

      >>The truth is – and we know it – that far, far more women have been taken advantage of than guys wrongly accused – over the years.>>

      This is just laughable. Moral equivalence again. “Taking advantage” equals “rape”, with its attendant consequences. What is “taking advantage”, Larry? The poor dears. They’re so put upon. Their mommas didn’t teach them how to use the proverbial hatpin on the subway. (See account of Jesse Spicer circa 1900 re: hiding a hatpin in her fur handmuff to repel mashers on the Lexington Avenue line. Oh yes, they had mashers even in those days) So it is now the province of the state to call it “rape” and protect the little dears, no matter what. Larry, sorry my friend. You’re just wrong on this one, employing as you do, the usual misdirection. I thought only lawyers did that “LOOK AT THE MONKEY, LOOK AT THE MONKEY, LOOK AT THE MONKEY, not guilty, LOOK AT THE MONKEY.” Employing your usual misdirection just won’t work in this case.

  6. Good comments, Larry G. But you ask, “where were the ‘defenders’ when folks like this got their ‘due process’?” I don’t get it.

    How is a teenager who’s been led to trust his parents’ basic fairness, and who’s led to believe the school will indulge most behavioral indiscretions with an informal slap on the wrist and a clean record upon graduation, supposed to know that This Time It’s Different — this time the summons to the Dean’s office is not for a little chat in loco parentis but for a meeting that his/her accusers will label a “hearing” to “determine the facts” in an inherently-difficult “he said, she said” setting, in a highly politicized context full of bureaucratic jargon and unspoken agendas, and say of it later, “you had your chance”?

    That’s putting aside those cases where the student did his/her homework and sought to put on a defense, then was denied basic due process (a statement of the accusation and the possible penalties therefor, opportunity to confront the accuser & question & rebut the evidence).

    I hate to see every sexual experience on campus summed up as yet another example of “a student culture of widespread drunken and promiscuous sex in which women conduct themselves with appallingly poor judgment and men with crass selfishness.” But if that is the collective prejudgment most of us are going to apply here, then the only recourse is to bring to bear the full, scary weight, and full due process protections, of our criminal courts and judicial process. These cases should be removed from the callous jurisdiction of the bureaucrats and turned over to professionals. Privacy concerns be damned.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    Acbar – I think it’s real but no guy who has been through high school and college can say they don’t know what guys have said and think on sex and “conquests” and “putting out” and should I go on with the vernacular that I’m sure you are also familiar with?

    The truth is – and we know it – that far, far more women have been taken advantage of than guys wrongly accused – over the years.

    and tell me how things have gone in the military on this issue… tell me that servicemen have been unfairly treated as a result of accusations of rape from women in the service.

    so yes – we have a fairly ample history of guys behaviors over the decades and now perhaps the shoe is on the other foot…

    and, in time, it will find some middle ground as they wrangle it back and forth.

    but I say again – getting unfairly kicked out of college is a gnat on a dogs butt compared to being strapped on a gurney to meet your maker.

    I don’t think colleges should be engaged in this foolishness in the first place. I think the aggrieved should go directly to the police and if they end up arresting the guy – so be it.

    so we agree.

    It’s not like these guys are unaware of this. It’s a risk . Just like they might be messing with drugs and they know officer friendly might snag them.

    what I object to is people making this a partisan political issue – and targeting specific leaders as the reason behind all of this. what a total crock and it totally pollutes the whole issue because it purposely seeks to divide people – on the politics.

    that’s the motivation of some folks these days.. not finding answers and resolutions .. compromises and closure – nope.. it’s to widen that wedge even wider, to make it even more political – to make it election issues – litmus tests for your politics…

    hardly anything left for them to draw in and turn into a political hockey puck any more – you name it – and it’s an “issue”.

  8. TooManyTaxes Avatar

    Everyone deserves due process. What constitutes due process varies from situation to situation. There must be clear notice of any charges; a chance to answer those charges, present evidence and cross examine or otherwise challenge the evidence against a person; and the right to an impartial fact-finder.

  9. CrazyJD Avatar

    What about the right to meaningful help? Can you say, “a lawyer”?

  10. TooManyTaxes Avatar

    As the Supreme Court has held, a person has the right to appointed counsel, if indigent, whenever the charge could result in imprisonment. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002).

    I believe that many statutes or regulations, including those governing private entities, often allow, but do not require, a person to have counsel in other situations. Seems fair and reasonable to me.

    1. CrazyJD Avatar

      Ahh, but under the Title IX regulations, you affirmatively are not allowed to have counsel ask questions on your behalf. I can’t remember whether or not you are allowed to have them present at all and will defer to others who think they know.

      1. TooManyTaxes Avatar

        That is unacceptable to me. Absent unusual circumstances that don’t come to mind, a person should always be able to hire and use counsel.

        But I think you are correct in that the accused’s rights to counsel are quite limited. Another reason why the federal government has become evil over the years.

        1. CrazyJD Avatar

          Evil doesn’t begin to describe it. But there will be those on this blog who will rise robotically to defend the federal government. They are blind to what has become obvious.

          1. TooManyTaxes Avatar

            I come to this issue with a pretty balanced view. I have one daughter and one son. I’d like to see both protected under the law. Ignoring sexual assault is not acceptable, but nor is a lynch mob.

            Read the article from the April 2016 ABA Journal about Mary Washington University and Yik Yak – an app I never heard about until I read the article. Clearly the postings are offensive. But it’s the offensive stuff that makes the First Amendment critical to our freedom.

            What is really disgusting is that this comes from the federal government and Benito Mussolini – err, sorry – Barack Obama. Just exercising my First Amendment right here.

    2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      It is enlightening to read the published record of the White House meeting conducted in the late winter of 2014 and the reports issued then and soon thereafter by the White House and Department of Education on the subject of Title IX and alleged rape epidemic on US college and university campuses.

      At that first White House meeting setting this initiative in motion, the President and Vice President were the principle speakers aided by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett. Present were a host of high officials from cabinet secretaries on down.

      One of the primary themes argued by the President and Vice President and Ms. Jarrett was their charge that local police and courts were ignoring these crimes and/or and unable to effectively investigate, charge, and prosecute these crimes, and that the Colleges and Universities themselves were similarly dysfunctional. Hence the intent of their initiative was to devise ways to circumvent local police and state judicial authorities by building new judicial proceedings within the colleges and universities, and to strip from those proceedings protections that any accused would otherwise be entitled to under law so as to substantially increase the number of accusations, and convictions. Problem was that rape and sexual harassment crime rates in the nation had been falling for many years. So the schools had to be brought in line to assure that anywhere between one in four or five students were reported raped during their four years at college as a few studies had alleged, most of them long ago and highly suspect.

      To get folks attention the President assured women students, and the Presidents of their schools, that henceforth he personally “had the back” of the victims of these crimes. A clear threat that unreported, dropped, unpunished crime rate statistics had too radically change on college campuses.

      In my opinion this is where the Rolling Stones article and celebrated W & L rape allegation case that soon followed (and since disappeared from the news as best I can tell) came from, along with many other reported cases

      Not so long ago Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, and President of U. of California since late 2013, wrote a law review article (Harvard Law Review I recall) arguing that her University System and others throughout the nation were being bled dry of money and resources, trying to comply with Federal Regulations they could not satify, forcing them to act as police departments and local and state courts in the investigation, prosecution, judging, and conviction of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape claims made against American student under Title 1X.

      Another recent law review article tells how Title 1X is now being used the regulate and alter sexual behavior of students in US Colleges and Universities. I will provide citations to these articles here soon.

  11. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Regarding the Nation’s Federal Government “Sex Bureaucracy” see:

    The Sex Bureaucracy

    By: Jacob E. Gersen
    Harvard University
    By: Jeannie Suk
    Harvard Law School
    dated: March 18, 2016

    California Law Review, Forthcoming

    We are living in a new sex bureaucracy. Saliently decriminalized in the past decades, sex has at the same time become accountable to bureaucracy. In this Article, we focus on higher education to tell the story of the sex bureaucracy. The story is about the steady expansion of regulatory concepts of sex discrimination and sexual violence to the point that the regulated area comes to encompass ordinary sex. The mark of bureaucracy is procedure and organizational form. Over time, federal prohibitions against sex discrimination and sexual violence have been interpreted to require educational institutions to adopt particular procedures to respond, prevent, research, survey, inform, investigate, adjudicate, and train. The federal bureaucracy essentially required nongovernmental institutions to create mini-bureaucracies, and to develop policies and procedures that are subject to federal oversight. That oversight is not merely, as currently assumed, of sexual harassment and sexual violence, but also of sex itself. We call this “bureaucratic sex creep” — the enlargement of bureaucratic regulation of sexual conduct that is voluntary, non-harassing, nonviolent, and does not harm others. At a moment when it is politically difficult to criticize any undertaking against sexual assault, we are writing about the bureaucratic leveraging of sexual violence and harassment policy to regulate ordinary sex. An object of our critique is the bureaucratic tendency to merge sexual violence and sexual harassment with ordinary sex, and thus to trivialize a very serious problem. We worry that the sex bureaucracy is counterproductive to the goal of actually addressing the harms of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Our purpose is to guide the reader through the landscape of the sex bureaucracy so that its development and workings can be known and debated.

    Number of Pages in PDF File: 58


    Keywords: administrative law, sex, sexual violence, sex discrimination, sexual assault, sexual harassment, separation of powers, Title IX, Clery Act, Administrative Procedure Act, OCR, Department of Education, universities

  12. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    The Janet Napolitano article appeared in the Yale Law and Policy Review (not Harvard Law Review). This is excellence article and the follow on commentary retrieved through Google is also excellent.

    Ms. Napolitano, formerly Secretary of Homeland Security during O’Bama Administration understandably takes a very low key and understated approach to the issues and problems raised, but her underlying message seems clear.


Leave a Reply