Education and intelligence are not the only victims of colleges and universities; freedom and presumption of innocence also die there if one is even remotely accused of doing something sexually bad, and this is the case for one student at Dartmouth University.
The student, a black athlete (his race will be relevant to this story) who opted to be referred to as only John Doe, is alleging that Dartmouth University “discriminated against him based on his sex and race when he was suspended for two years based on the allegations of a female student,” according to The Daily Wire.
The story goes as follows: John Doe was asked by the female student, referred to as Sally Smith in court documents, to walk her home following a party on campus. Reportedly, Sally called John because she “didn’t know where she lived,” and John was sober as he is not one to consume alcohol. John agreed to walk her home, and once there, the two allegedly sat in her dorm room and talked for a while, before John eventually asked Sally if she wanted to have sex. According to John, Sally had said “yes” twice and the students proceeded to do the deed.
The following day, Sally asked John to meet with her and she had a friend of hers secretly hearing the conversation. In this meeting, Sally reportedly told John that she hadn’t wanted to have sex with him and had asked: “Do you think I was in the right mindset to say yes?” Days later, Sally reported the incident to Dartmouth’s Title IX office, claiming John had sexually assaulted her.
The school eventually determined that John had slept with Sally “without her valid consent.” Thing is that they also found that she was not incapacitated, which is necessary for one to determine if consent can even be given. The school also made that earlier determination despite John’s claim that she twice consented to it.
So basically, the school found that Sally was not intoxicated or incapacitated enough to qualify for not having been able to give valid consent, but they still punished John as if she did meet that standard requirement, according to the school itself. What a load of crap.
At any rate, John is suing the school and his attorney wrote in the suit that “Sally may have misremembered the night due to her intoxication”, according to The Daily Wire, though Dartmouth found her to not be at the level of intoxication of being unable to consent. Not remembering having given consent is not the same as not having been conscious enough to give consent.
John also notes in his suit that the school’s Title IX administrator, an unnamed white woman, showed “implicit racial and sex-based bias” against him.
According to the Concord Monitor: “For example, Doe said he had asked Smith if her roommate was home to see why she hadn’t called her when Smith couldn’t remember where she lived, but the investigator said he was ‘casing’ her living quarters.”
The lawsuit says: “Many of the inferences the Investigator drew from the evidence were based on this underlying biased and stereotypical view of (the plaintiff) as an aggressive, hypersexual Black male.”
But at any rate, there is no mistaking here the injustice that is being done to the male student. The school is punishing him for allegedly “sexually assaulting” a girl who was not so intoxicated to the point where she couldn’t give consent. That she ended up regretting it later, or forgetting giving consent, is not the same as having not given consent.
Now, allow me to make two important points here.
First of all, they shouldn’t even be having sex in the first place. Sex outside of marriage is wrong and a sin, regardless of whether or not one believes that is the case.
But even if one is of the belief that sex outside of marriage is okay, it is still best to not have sex outside of marriage in the first place. One of the biggest reasons so many babies are aborted is because of one-night stands that often lead to pregnancy. People this young should not be having sex if they are not yet ready for the responsibilities of parenthood. Not to mention that adults who are ready for such responsibilities also should not be doing this outside of marriage either. It’s not just scared high school and college girls who get abortions, sadly.
And even if abortion is not what the girl ends up choosing, the responsibilities of parenthood (regardless of if the father stays in the picture, though it is easier if he is) are still going to be life-altering for the parents. Again, they need to be ready for the responsibility of parenthood, and pretty much no college-aged person, male or female, is ready for it.
Of course, a child is not present in the picture of this case, but one of the results of sexual intercourse is reproduction. This is more than just about this one particular young man. Everyone ought to adhere to this line of thinking.
Furthermore, even ignoring a child being one of the potential results of sexual interaction, it’s still a good idea to abstain from sex because it becomes far more difficult for sexual assault to be alleged, or at least, for severe punishment to be given.
Which brings me to my second point: it’s a massive issue that schools operate under a “believe all women”, “to hell with presumption of innocence” system because sexual assault can be alleged of just about anyone, even if nothing happened, and punishments can be doled out.
While that may seem contradictory to what I had just said about abstaining from sex, allow me to repeat myself: it becomes far more difficult for sexual assault to be alleged if one abstains from sex. That doesn’t mean impossible, but it helps in one’s case, for sure.
If a girl wanted to maliciously accuse a random guy of raping her, she certainly could do it, but the evidence is on the guy’s side if he generally abstains from sex.
The problem, again, comes with how the schools are opting to work with these cases. One of the tragedies of the “#MeToo” movement was that presumption of innocence was thrown out the window. We are to “believe all women” even if it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that sexual assault of any level actually occurred.
The schools go along with this because they are Leftists and love punishing the innocent (and taking money from the government which would likely defund them if they didn’t do this crap), so they dole out suspensions and expulsions like TicTacs to all who are accused of something so egregious, regardless of evidence.
Case in point, the one we just talked about. The guy was suspended for TWO YEARS, not because there is evidence that he sexually assaulted the girl, but because the girl simply made the claim.
The punishment would have been the same regardless of whether or not her statement was true (though, arguably, if it was true, he could stand to be expelled, but that he was suspended for two years is an outrage and injustice).
This does a massive disservice to a bunch of people, from innocent men who legitimately want to do right by women to actual survivors of sexual assault. It sets the standard that one’s own liberties and rights can immediately be stripped away if someone merely gives out an accusation of something terrible.
One of the reasons the French Revolution saw 16-17,000 people being sent to the guillotine is because people accused one another left and right of treason and “sympathetic beliefs towards the French nobility and royal family.”
Setting aside the fact that that was a clear violation of free speech (a right given to mankind by God, not by governments’ constitutions), it showed the most extreme extent of what presumption of guilt, as opposed to innocence, can do.
Those people were accused of holding “treasonous” beliefs, whether or not that was true, and were sent to the guillotine. According to Britannica, the Reign of Terror “entailed the arrest of at least 300,000 suspects, 17,000 of whom were sentenced to death and executed while more died in prisons or were killed without any form of trial.”
Again, this is presumption of guilt in its most extreme form because the standard for law-breaking leading to a death sentence was relatively low. Merely dissenting from the Jacobins was punishable by death.
In the case of sexual assault in college campuses, the punishments are lesser and standards fairly higher, but are egregious and unjust nonetheless.
Holding dissenting opinions doesn’t suspend you from college (as of yet, at least), but simply being accused of committing a hard crime like sexual assault can net some form of punishment, regardless of its veracity.
I can understand the desire of protecting the accusers, as it’s not always going to be the case where a girl just maliciously accuses a random guy, but punishing the accused on the presumption that he is guilty is not right at any capacity. Take measures to protect the accuser, sure, as it is possible that the accused actually did it and stands to be a threat to the accuser, but it should never be at the expense of the accused’s right to defend himself and be presumed innocent.
As William Blackstone expressed in his seminal work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in the 1760s, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
It’s far better for the justice of mankind that there be a standard where ten people who are guilty of crimes are found not guilty than for there to be a standard where even one innocent person can be found guilty.
Of course, no country and court system lives up to that standard, but that doesn’t mean that that standard should be disregarded, discarded, or that we shouldn’t strive to achieve it to the best of our ability.
If John Doe really sexually assaulted Sally, despite the evidence to the contrary, then let him be found guilty in court according to the necessary standard for guilt. Until then, he shouldn’t be punished, and certainly not this severely.
Again, I can understand the desire to protect the accuser and help her feel comfortable and safe, but her safety and comfort shouldn’t come at the expense of the accused’s own rights and liberties.
I hope that the young man receives rectification for this injustice done to him and that, even more than that, we leave behind the systems which promote and incentivize the presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence.
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...