A former Amherst College student filed a suit against the school. The lawsuit claims that Amherst expelled the student, named “John Doe” in the suit, in an effort to appear tough on sexual assault. A female student accused Doe of assaulting her in 2012. According to the lawsuit:
“In the just six weeks from the date the complaint was filed against him, the plaintiff found himself held guilty of assault, expelled from the college, ejected from the campus and branded a sex offender, with his entire future in ruins,” the suit states, in part. “The actions taken by the defendants resulted from a deeply flawed investigatory and disciplinary process during which the plaintiff was denied the most rudimentary elements of fairness promised to him by Amherst in its Student Handbook.”
This is typical of many college sexual assault proceedings. The accused have little to no recourse. They are not allowed representation, not allowed to confront the accuser, not allowed to present counter evidence, and not allowed much of any defense. It is purely up to the judging panel whether the student will face any consequence.
Yet it is curious how anyone could expel the Doe considering the facts. For instance, the woman accusing Doe filed the complaint 21 months after the alleged incident occurred. She gave varying accounts of what happened, initially claiming that the oral sex was non-consensual, then claiming that it began as consensual but became non-consensual later. She claimed she never wrote down any details about the event, including text messages, yet said text messages surfaced. They contradict the woman’s claims about the timing of the alleged assault and the nature of the interaction between her and Doe.
That evidence alone makes this woman’s claims at least questionable. What makes this case different is one other pesky problem: John Doe was blacked out when his accuser performed oral sex on him.
In other words, the accuser is the actual rapist.
That means this woman who allegedly raped an intoxicated man later claimed he raped her in an apparent attempt to cover up the assault (a suggestion that apparently given by the woman’s new “victim’s advocate” friends) and it worked.
The text messages verify this:
D.R.’s text messages with the woman began around 1:14 a.m., just after Doe left her room after the incident.
In the messages, the woman said that she had just done something “stupid.” She said that she had “f—ed” the man. She expressed concern about what E.K., her roommate and the man’s girlfriend, would do when she found out about the incident. “I’m pretty sure [John Doe] was too drunk to make a good lie out of s–t,” documents show she wrote.
D.R. suggested that the woman put the blame on the man, to which the woman replied, “[E.K.] knows me it’s pretty obvi I wasn’t an innocent bystander,” according to documents.
I will let Ashe Schow explain the rest:
This is one of the few cases where we have an actually good idea of what happened the night in question. Doe accompanied the accuser (who was Doe’s girlfriend’s roommate) to her dorm room. The accuser performed oral sex on a blacked out Doe (Johnson notes that even the Amherst hearing found Doe’s account of being blacked out “credible”). Doe leaves. The accuser then texted two people: First, a male student she had a crush on — whom she invited over after a heavily flirtatious exchange earlier in the evening. Then, a female friend.
[…] the accuser texted her friend “Ohmygod I jus did something so fuckig stupid” [sic throughout]. She then proceeded to fret that she had done something wrong and her roommate would never talk to her again, because “it’s pretty obvi I wasn’t an innocent bystander.”
She also complained that the other man, who had come over after the alleged assault, had taken until 5 in the morning to finally have sex with her.
The accuser found herself friendless after the encounter, when her roommate discovered what she had done.
Between the encounter with Doe and the accusation — nearly two years later — the accuser developed new friends. And as it happens, these new friends were all “victims’ advocates.”
When Doe discovered the text messages, he presented the findings to Amherst. The school refused to reopen his case.
In short, it appears Amherst College is attempting to prevent campus rape by protecting an alleged rapist.
Is this not the very thing men’s rights activists warned people about? Did they not say that these policies would make it so easy to falsely accuse someone that even women who are rapists could accuse their victims and be believed?
Yes, that is a slippery slope argument, yet has it not proven itself true?
What makes this so baffling is that the college believed Doe’s claim about being blacked out. By expelling him, the college essentially states that when a woman performs oral sex on a passed out man, the man is the rapist.
Of course, this happened solely because of the feminist push to “listen and believe” women even when the evidence suggests the women are the rapists.
It would not surprise me if plenty of feminists agreed with that statement. I would be more surprised to find feminists who do not. So I challenge my readers, particularly any feminists reading this: find me a mainstream feminist who talked about this case who does not side with the woman.