A male student at the University of Michigan was accused of sexual assault by a female student who claimed that when they had sex, she was too intoxicated to consent.
A university investigator interviewed 23 witnesses and concluded that "there is no evidence of the complainant's outward signs of incapacitation that the respondent would have observed prior to initiating the sexual activity."
End of case--based on that finding of fact, there is no evidence to find the male student responsible for sexual assault. She reasonably appeared to him to have capacity, so her claim must be rejected. The accused cannot be expected to read his sex partner's inner thoughts--if she agrees to have sex and her outward manifestations reasonably suggest she has capacity, he's not guilty of sexual assault. Period.
The woman appealed. And somehow, the administrative appeal board overturned the investigator's findings and found the man had violated the sexual conduct code. In late June, he signed a resolution agreement agreeing to leave U-M.
He's changed his mind, and he's suing now. So is she. He's alleging that his due process rights have been violated. The same old-same old.
This case is not difficult. It doesn't present unique issues, nor does it raise matters worthy of any debate whatsoever. What the University of Michigan did here was grossly unjust to the male student, and its unconscionable decision appears to have been motivated by the accused's gender. All persons of goodwill should outraged--and alumni at U-M ought to demand justice for the young man.
End of story.