To recap, a male student (John Doe) at Amherst College found himself brought up on charges of sexual assault before a campus disciplinary tribunal, was found guilty and then expelled.
A couple of things stand out about this case;
- The accuser went to John Doe’s room.
- John Doe was black out drunk.
- The accuser performed oral sex on John Doe.
- The accuser texted a residential advisor saying that she felt stupid for engaging in sexual activity with Doe – because he was her roommate’s boyfriend.
- The accuser confessed in the text that she was “not an innocent bystander” in what happened between her and Doe.
- That same night, immediately after leaving Doe’s room, the accuser texted another male student inviting him to her room for sex.
All of the above is not disputed.
I forgot to mention that the incident in question happened in 2012. The accuser reported the incident, and Doe was tried and expelled, in 2014 – two years later.
Given that the trial was conducted under the regime of the Obama Administration’s notorious “Dear Colleague” letter, Doe was not availed of the opportunity to cross-examine his accuser, and, of course, the text messages sent by the accuser were not reviewed by the administrators who tried his case, found him guilty and expelled him.
Doe – perhaps not realizing that the fix was in – asked Amherst to reopen the case in light of the texts, but the college refused. Doe then sued the school.
Now, in a twist that should terrify anyone who believes in due process, a Federal Judge – appointed by George W. Bush, no less – has ruled that the accuser may not be compelled to provide any documentation or be made to testify about the incident, because it would be too “traumatic” for her to “relive” it.
This is a wholesale adoption of the feminist argument for abrogating the accused’s right to confront his or her accuser. And it should frighten us all.
The trauma excuse has not only been used to prevent cross-examination but to also dismiss clearly exculpatory evidence (e.g. texts, emails, voice mails in which the accuser is saying “I had a great time last night …”) as being the result of confusion due to “trauma”.
Over the last few years, we have laughed and giggled at the crazy demands of the Social Justice mob on campus. But, as we have seen, there is no guarantee that the crazy will remain on campus.
Which is one of the reasons why this feminist-inspired star chamber model of jurisprudence needs to be combated and killed where it was born on college campuses; the very real threat that it will bleed over into the court system off-campus.
Many of the Social Justice Fascists on campus today will take their fascism off-campus if and when they graduate. Not all of them are Gender Studies, Ethnic Studies, Queer Studies or Comparative Literature majors with nothing but serving coffee in their futures. Some will go to Law School. Some will end up on the bench.
Given that it is already the view of the majority of Democrat members of Congress that the accused in sexual assault cases on campus should be denied due process, and that the previous Democrat Administration actually codified it into practice, there is every likelihood that this would soon be pushed as a model to be taken off-campus and into the real world.
Couple this with the possibility of a liberal “social justice” seeking majority on the Supreme Court, and if not curbed now, sooner or later, men both on-campus and off-campus would find themselves in court, charged and facing life imprisonment (or worse), and stripped of any means of defending themselves.