Court rejects school's argument that white males are not a protected class, allows him to file a Title IX claim
One night in 2009, Joshua Vaughan and an unnamed female classmate at Vermont Law School engaged in alcohol-fueled sex. Six months later, the woman reported her version of the story to two "student ambassadors" who then informed Shirley Jefferson, the school's Dean for Student Affairs and Diversity. Jefferson then met with Vaughan regarding the complaint and asked him about the underlying events. Jefferson made a determination that it was more probable than not that Vaughan had violated the school's Code of Conduct. Jefferson appointed independent investigators to investigate the complaint. In the meantime, the alleged victim sent Jefferson an email stating that she did not want further involvement in the investigation or in any subsequent hearing.
Among other things, the investigators reported that the alleged victim expressed uncertainty about whether she verbally said "no" and that, "assuming that [the alleged victim's]' accounts are accurate, [they could not] say that Mr. Vaughan understood that RH did not want to have intercourse with him[.]"
After reviewing the investigator's report, Jefferson made another determination that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Vaughan had violated the school's Code of Conduct by committing sexual assault and by engaging in a pattern of behavior constituting sexual harassment.
The dispute proceeded to a disciplinary hearing. The hearing panel found that both charges against Vaughan were "unfounded."
Vaughn then filed suit against the school and Jefferson, alleging that their handling of the woman's complaint has negatively affected his educational experience in a number of ways.
Vaughn recently sought to amend his complaint to add a Title IX claim against the school. Vaughan alleges that the school, in its handling of the accuser's complaint, "was motivated by Vaughan's gender or sex in that [the school] favored and gave preferential treatment to the female complainant and disfavored, discredited and gave disadvantageous treatment to Vaughan as a male."
Title IX provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Astoundingly, the school and Jefferson argued that "[w]hite male law students" are not members of a protected class. The court disagreed.
"[T]here is no question," wrote Judge William K. Sessions, "that males alleging gender discrimination may bring suit under Title IX."
The court held that Mr. Vaughn's complaint raises a legitimate Title IX claim by alleging that he suffered adverse educational actions and that female students, in particular his accuser, were treated more favorably than him.
Specifically, Vaughan asserts, among other things, that the school "accepted [the accuser's] complaint as having 'reasonable cause' without any investigation of it at all, but refused to accept or even consider Vaughan's complaint" that one of the student ambassadors who met with the accuser assaulted him. (We don't have any further details about that allegation, but will try to uncover them.)
Moreover, Vaughn claims the school gave his accuser the investigators' report as soon as its representatives received it on April 6, but refused to give it to Vaughan until after he made his decision to have a hearing on May 14.
Vaughn further alleges that the school prevented Vaughan, but not his accuser, from taking courses where the two of them were both registered -- even after the disciplinary charges against him were dismissed.
In addition, Vaughn alleges that the school effectively barred Vaughan from most public socializing by encouraging the Student Ambassadors to have Vaughan barred from a local bar and grill.
Further, Vaughn alleges that the school took an unreasonable amount of time to complete its investigation and disciplinary hearing process, during which he was not given access to his transcript and thereby prevented from completing transfer applications for other law schools.
If Mr. Vaughn prevails, it is hoped that he recovers significant damages to send a message to schools: men merely accused of sexual assault should not be punished by giving preferences to their accusers.
Citation: Vaughan v. Vt. Law Sch., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86429 (D.Vt. 2011).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
You know what is shocking about this? The disdain that the school holds for its white male students, alleging that they are not a protected class under law.
On the upper right side of our page is a stylized picture of the Supreme Court building. It's difficult to read there, but the words at the top of the building say, "Equal justice under law." I guess to universities like this, that's all those are -- words. It's probably fitting that the words are difficult to read in my picture because the concept is just as difficult to see in action.
Sends a shudder up my scrot. This is how men are treated on campus nowadays.
But ultimately, isn't this a victory?
Or - has the lawsuit not gone through yet?
"Equal justice under law" does not apply to universities any more than it applies to the military.
"Equal justice using the check and balance system" is a more apt way to word it when white males are involved, and for good reason.
Time for a white male law students boycott?
Anon at 2:21: your comment is unclear.
Pierce,
The scariest part....it's a law school. They should know better.
ScareCrow: the judge simply allowed the claim to proceed. The trial hasn't occurred yet. Nevertheless, it's a huge victory.
Steve, I can only imagine what they teach!
The Gender-Raunch community that dominate Vermont Law school see all hetero-sexual activity as harassment and most likely rape.
When earlier feminists spouted "All hetero-sex is rape", well Vermont law school took it very seriously..And this is not hyperbole folks.
Being an open hetero-sexual in Vermont law school may wind you up in the deans office.
Folks this is a very interesting case to fallow. Vermont law school is the seat and think tank for East coast Gender-Raunch.
The faulty and inflammatory rhetoric machine runs deep at Vermont law school, and needs some outside perspective.
I'm not a 'white' male but this still upsets me.
Not 'white' myself but I definitely agree with Anon @ 5:22.
Sad thing is that I wouldn't be surprised to see this case go poorly for the plaintiff... I wish him the best of luck, though; the only way schools are EVER going to get the message that this sort of nonsense is NOT ALRIGHT is when they have to pay through the nose in damages.
Well, the federal judge in North Carolina handling the lawsuits by the falsely-accused Duke lacrosse players (Fourth Circuit) recently ruled that "white Duke students" are not a protected class; and that sec. 1983 of the civil rights laws was written for African-Americans who suffered the results of slavery and segregation (and was not meant to apply to anyone else).
This is the first time I knew that laws could be written to apply to some citizens but not to all; that even laws which refer to "every person" do not really mean that; and that civil rights protections do not extend equally to persons of Asian, Latino, or white descent.
But I guess you learn something every day...
Well, the federal judge in North Carolina handling the lawsuits by the falsely-accused Duke lacrosse players (Fourth Circuit) recently ruled that "white Duke students" are not a protected class;
Who is this judge? What is their name?
Post a Comment