University suspends male student for consensual sexual encounter despite no victim

[Metaphor]

Reported here

[Emphasis in quotes mine to convey the gist of the story quickly]

Colorado State University-Pueblo suspended a male athlete for years after he was found responsible for sexually assaulting a female trainer. But the trainer never accused him of wrongdoing, and said repeatedly that their relationship was consensual. She even stated, unambiguously, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped."

That's according to the athlete's lawsuit against CSUP, which persuasively argues that the university not only deprived him of fundamental due process rights, but also denied sexual agency to an adult woman. Taken at face value, this case appears to represent one of the most paternalistic, puritanically anti-sex witch hunts ever reported on a college campus.

But that's not the only reason this case is interesting. The student-athlete, Grant Neal, has named the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights as a co-defendant. OCR's Title IX guidance to universities "encourages male gender bias and violation of due process right during sexual misconduct investigations," according to a statement from Neal's legal team.

Earlier this month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the law firm of Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon offered to represent a student who is willing to sue OCR. While Neal has retained different legal representation, it appears that his lawyer—Andrew Miltenberg—is prepared to make similar arguments against Title IX overreach. (More on that in a bit.)

Neal's expulsion (it's silly to call it a "suspension"; multi-year suspensions are expulsions) stemmed from his allegedly improper sexual relationship with a female student and athletic trainer, Jane Doe. In the fall of 2015, Neal was a sophomore at CSUP: he and Doe became good friends and eventually developed romantic feelings for each other. Sexual relationships between athletes and trainers are frowned upon, however, so they first attempted to remain friends.

On October 23, they went to the movies together. Afterward, they kissed and engaged in consensual sexual behavior. They did so the following evening as well. These were not drunken hookups: these were mutually-agreed upon encounters, according to the details in the lawsuit.

At one point, Neal expressed concerns about giving Doe a hickey—a kiss mark on her neck—because the other trainers might notice it. Doe encouraged him to do so anyway, and promised to wear a hoodie the next day. These and other anecdotes demonstrate Doe's full complicity in the sexual activity that took place, though her statements are even more definitive.

The hickey was indeed noticed by another trainer, described as the "Complainant" in the lawsuit. When confronted, Doe confessed to the Complainant that she and Dean had engaged in sex. According to the lawsuit, the Complainant "presumed" this sex was nonconsensual, and reported it to the director of the athletic training program.

Later, when Doe found out, she gave Neal the bad news, and texted him the following messages:

"One of the other Athletic Training students screwed me over!...She went behind my back and told my AT advisor stuff that wasn’t true!!! I’m trying so hard to fix it all."

Neal and Doe met in person to discuss the situation. Without Doe's knowledge, Neal recorded their conversation. This audio recording further establishes that their sex was consensual. While in Neal's presence, Doe fielded a phone call from a coordinator of the athletic training program and stated "I'm fine and I wasn't raped." She then called her mother and told her the same thing.

Both Doe and her mother pressed the administrators of the athletic training program—a husband and wife team—to drop the matter, but it was too late: they had already informed the Title IX office.

To be clear, CSUP apparently believes that Title IX requires the university to investigate a student for sexual misconduct, even when his alleged victim resolutely insists that he is innocent and does not want the issue investigated. Administrators essentially treated Doe like an object that belonged to them—one that no one else was allowed to touch.

Neal and Doe, it should be noted, had consensual sex again—probably because they genuinely liked and were interested in each other, despite the university's herculean efforts to keep them from touching each other.

Doe told another administrator, "Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!"

To belabor the point a bit, here are messages she sent to Neal, even after the university instituted a reciprocal no-contact order during the investigation:

"I miss you & care about you so much Grant [Neal]! Everything will work out…I promise"

“I hope you know I still care about you so much! I’m trying so hard to fix this… you don’t deserve any of this. I just wanna talk to you again… I’m sooooo SORRY!” I hope that you are okay. I’m so worried. I’m so sorry! I’m so upset they did this."

The details of the adjudication process will be familiar to anyone who has read my other reports on sexual misconduct "disputes" ("dispute" being an increasingly odd word to use, given that I've now covered two consecutive cases where the "victims" agreed with the accused that their sex was consensual). He was denied full knowledge of the charges against him, presumed to be guilty from the outset, and could not cross-examine witnesses. He was suspended on an interim basis before the hearing could even take place.

The adjudicator—Defendant Roosevelt Wilson, who is named in the lawsuit—even refused to interview witnesses who would have corroborated Neal's account. "Defendant Wilson professed that he was in charge of the investigation and would be the only person to declare someone a witness in this matter," according to the lawsuit.

The predetermined outcome for Neal was a guilty verdict: he was suspended for the remainder of Doe's time at the university.

This is as gross a miscarriage of justice as they come, and Neal has filed suit. His lawyer, Miltenberg, blames not just CSUP, but the federal government's illiberal guidance to universities to police sexual assault without any respect for due process:

"From the outset, Grant Neal was presumed guilty of sexual misconduct based on nothing more than hearsay and his own male gender,” said Miltenberg. "In violation of the University’s own self-imposed policies and my client’s fundamental rights to due process, the University required Grant to prove his innocence, rather than requiring the University to prove his guilt. This case illustrates the impact the Administration’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter has had in creating a deeply-flawed process for sexual misconduct investigations -- as well as an inherent male gender bias — at colleges and universities throughout the country."

The lawsuit was filed today. I will be eagerly anticipating the federal government's response. What happened at CSUP was nothing short of a scandal: a cabal of vicious, sex-negative administrators ruined a young man's life and told a young woman she has no sexual agency. This is the world according to Title IX.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Reported here

[Emphasis in quotes mine to convey the gist of the story quickly]

Colorado State University-Pueblo suspended a male athlete for years after he was found responsible for sexually assaulting a female trainer. But the trainer never accused him of wrongdoing, and said repeatedly that their relationship was consensual. She even stated, unambiguously, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped."

That's according to the athlete's lawsuit against CSUP, which persuasively argues that the university not only deprived him of fundamental due process rights, but also denied sexual agency to an adult woman. Taken at face value, this case appears to represent one of the most paternalistic, puritanically anti-sex witch hunts ever reported on a college campus.

But that's not the only reason this case is interesting. The student-athlete, Grant Neal, has named the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights as a co-defendant. OCR's Title IX guidance to universities "encourages male gender bias and violation of due process right during sexual misconduct investigations," according to a statement from Neal's legal team.

Earlier this month, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the law firm of Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon offered to represent a student who is willing to sue OCR. While Neal has retained different legal representation, it appears that his lawyer—Andrew Miltenberg—is prepared to make similar arguments against Title IX overreach. (More on that in a bit.)

Neal's expulsion (it's silly to call it a "suspension"; multi-year suspensions are expulsions) stemmed from his allegedly improper sexual relationship with a female student and athletic trainer, Jane Doe. In the fall of 2015, Neal was a sophomore at CSUP: he and Doe became good friends and eventually developed romantic feelings for each other. Sexual relationships between athletes and trainers are frowned upon, however, so they first attempted to remain friends.

On October 23, they went to the movies together. Afterward, they kissed and engaged in consensual sexual behavior. They did so the following evening as well. These were not drunken hookups: these were mutually-agreed upon encounters, according to the details in the lawsuit.

At one point, Neal expressed concerns about giving Doe a hickey—a kiss mark on her neck—because the other trainers might notice it. Doe encouraged him to do so anyway, and promised to wear a hoodie the next day. These and other anecdotes demonstrate Doe's full complicity in the sexual activity that took place, though her statements are even more definitive.

The hickey was indeed noticed by another trainer, described as the "Complainant" in the lawsuit. When confronted, Doe confessed to the Complainant that she and Dean had engaged in sex. According to the lawsuit, the Complainant "presumed" this sex was nonconsensual, and reported it to the director of the athletic training program.

Later, when Doe found out, she gave Neal the bad news, and texted him the following messages:

"One of the other Athletic Training students screwed me over!...She went behind my back and told my AT advisor stuff that wasn’t true!!! I’m trying so hard to fix it all."

Neal and Doe met in person to discuss the situation. Without Doe's knowledge, Neal recorded their conversation. This audio recording further establishes that their sex was consensual. While in Neal's presence, Doe fielded a phone call from a coordinator of the athletic training program and stated "I'm fine and I wasn't raped." She then called her mother and told her the same thing.

Both Doe and her mother pressed the administrators of the athletic training program—a husband and wife team—to drop the matter, but it was too late: they had already informed the Title IX office.

To be clear, CSUP apparently believes that Title IX requires the university to investigate a student for sexual misconduct, even when his alleged victim resolutely insists that he is innocent and does not want the issue investigated. Administrators essentially treated Doe like an object that belonged to them—one that no one else was allowed to touch.

Neal and Doe, it should be noted, had consensual sex again—probably because they genuinely liked and were interested in each other, despite the university's herculean efforts to keep them from touching each other.

Doe told another administrator, "Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!"

To belabor the point a bit, here are messages she sent to Neal, even after the university instituted a reciprocal no-contact order during the investigation:

"I miss you & care about you so much Grant [Neal]! Everything will work out…I promise"

“I hope you know I still care about you so much! I’m trying so hard to fix this… you don’t deserve any of this. I just wanna talk to you again… I’m sooooo SORRY!” I hope that you are okay. I’m so worried. I’m so sorry! I’m so upset they did this."

The details of the adjudication process will be familiar to anyone who has read my other reports on sexual misconduct "disputes" ("dispute" being an increasingly odd word to use, given that I've now covered two consecutive cases where the "victims" agreed with the accused that their sex was consensual). He was denied full knowledge of the charges against him, presumed to be guilty from the outset, and could not cross-examine witnesses. He was suspended on an interim basis before the hearing could even take place.

The adjudicator—Defendant Roosevelt Wilson, who is named in the lawsuit—even refused to interview witnesses who would have corroborated Neal's account. "Defendant Wilson professed that he was in charge of the investigation and would be the only person to declare someone a witness in this matter," according to the lawsuit.

The predetermined outcome for Neal was a guilty verdict: he was suspended for the remainder of Doe's time at the university.

This is as gross a miscarriage of justice as they come, and Neal has filed suit. His lawyer, Miltenberg, blames not just CSUP, but the federal government's illiberal guidance to universities to police sexual assault without any respect for due process:

"From the outset, Grant Neal was presumed guilty of sexual misconduct based on nothing more than hearsay and his own male gender,” said Miltenberg. "In violation of the University’s own self-imposed policies and my client’s fundamental rights to due process, the University required Grant to prove his innocence, rather than requiring the University to prove his guilt. This case illustrates the impact the Administration’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter has had in creating a deeply-flawed process for sexual misconduct investigations -- as well as an inherent male gender bias — at colleges and universities throughout the country."

The lawsuit was filed today. I will be eagerly anticipating the federal government's response. What happened at CSUP was nothing short of a scandal: a cabal of vicious, sex-negative administrators ruined a young man's life and told a young woman she has no sexual agency. This is the world according to Title IX.

Hopefully not every student who has sex is expelled or the universities would be almost empty. If this article is correct, the Educational institutions should use its investigations more akin to the legal system which is more likely to be evidence based. If they are of the age of consent and it was consensual then policies on expulsion should be revised. Educational institutions should be applying the principles of justice as applied in the US.
I believe one solution in future would be to allow arbitration to take place which normally cheaper than the courts and generally much quicker.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, but Doe is just a woman. Does she have the mental capacity to know whether or not she was sexually assaulted?

 

[bigfield]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

 

[Arctish]

It does appear the University erred on the side of suspension, but not because of what the OP article says.

Here's a different account with more details, including the reason the disciplinary board concluded Neal had engaged in non-consensual sexual contact.

According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

That same night, Oct. 27, the woman met with Neal and went to his home. His roommates were gone and again Neal and the woman engaged in consensual sex. This time his roommates returned home. One of them, Quinn Vandekoppel, opened the door to Neal’s room and saw the pair engaged in sexual intercourse with the woman atop Neal. Vandekoppel told CBS4, “You don’t come back to your alleged rapist’s house and engage in sex with them the night after the incident. It just doesn’t make any sense at all.”

But CSU-Pueblo’s Title IX investigation found the preponderance of evidence substantiated a finding of sexual misconduct on the part of Grant Neal for participating in non-consensual sexual intercourse on Oct. 25 for the moment when he didn’t have a condom on during that sexual encounter. The university suspended Neal from campus, ruling he could not return until the woman graduates.

BTW, I thought the name of the source of the OP article was pretty funny given the overwrought tone and obvious appeals to emotion, like this little gem:

To be clear, CSUP apparently believes that Title IX requires the university to investigate a student for sexual misconduct, even when his alleged victim resolutely insists that he is innocent and does not want the issue investigated. Administrators essentially treated Doe like an object that belonged to them—one that no one else was allowed to touch.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

This may be the case, but having also been to private education institutions all circumstances should be wisely considered. I presume they are run by educated people. Perhaps the lawsuit may be dismissed, but under our remaining common law values, judges make the laws by way of adjudications.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, but Doe is just a woman. Does she have the mental capacity to know whether or not she was sexually assaulted?

What if they both did not have the mental capacity to know what they were doing? Perhaps doing it just for fun could be deemed by the college as irresponsible.

 

[bigfield]

It does appear the University erred on the side of suspension, but not because of what the OP article says.

Here's a different account with more details, including the reason the disciplinary board concluded Neal had engaged in non-consensual sexual contact.

According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

That same night, Oct. 27, the woman met with Neal and went to his home. His roommates were gone and again Neal and the woman engaged in consensual sex. This time his roommates returned home. One of them, Quinn Vandekoppel, opened the door to Neal’s room and saw the pair engaged in sexual intercourse with the woman atop Neal. Vandekoppel told CBS4, “You don’t come back to your alleged rapist’s house and engage in sex with them the night after the incident. It just doesn’t make any sense at all.”


But CSU-Pueblo’s Title IX investigation found the preponderance of evidence substantiated a finding of sexual misconduct on the part of Grant Neal for participating in non-consensual sexual intercourse on Oct. 25 for the moment when he didn’t have a condom on during that sexual encounter. The university suspended Neal from campus, ruling he could not return until the woman graduates.

Suddenly the 'Complainant' doesn't sound like quite the crazy malicious bitch she's made out to be in the OP.

Amazing that Robby Soave at Reason.com managed to leave that rather-important piece of information out of his article. I guess he didn't want to ruin a good outrage story.

Soave is perhaps best known for his early skepticism of Rolling Stone's investigative reporting on sexual assault at the University of Virginia. He won a 2015 Southern California Journalism Award for his commentary on the subject.

http://reason.com/people/robby-soave/all

His journalistic standards are slipping.

 

[couch_sloth]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

But Colorado State University–Pueblo isn't a private institution/university.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The way the op is worded, the complainant should definitely win and get his money.

However, details Arctish later posted make it a little more complicated.

The question is whether a university can suspend (for a year or two) a student for not following policy (which also happens to be a bad practice*) when the victim did not mind.

I am leaning toward him not receiving consequences, but at the same time, I think he needs to learn something from this experience about consent and respect for other people.

*The reason I say it's a bad practice is that for any particular person he inserted his penis into, they may have completely freaked out when they said no but he did it anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What can he learn about consent and respect? He had sex with someone who consented and they never seemed to lose any respect for each other. The university process which was used here is not one which anyone should have a modicum of respect for.

 

[couch_sloth]

. According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

 

[Derec]

What a horrible case and shows just how flawed the collegiate approach to sex assault is. Of course, the Obama administration, with the "Dear Colleague" policy that denies male students due process rights, has its share of complicity in this matter. And while contemporary feminism apparently has no problem with denying "sexual agency to an adult woman" (just look at their embrace of the "Swedish Model", which does exactly the same thing for sex workers) I wonder how they can justify university's behavior in this case, other than simplistic "two legs good, three legs bad" sexism.

 

[Derec]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

As long as unfair expulsions target men the feminist left is fine with in. More than fine, they make the problem worse by federal government demanding colleges use lowest possible burden of proof and deprive accused male students of any due process rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

. According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

I'm quite a bit interested in the "..." part of that quote. It is like when Bruce Banner all of a sudden has control over becoming the Hulk in The Avengers. It was a ... moment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK, but Doe is just a woman. Does she have the mental capacity to know whether or not she was sexually assaulted?

Well, if she got pregnant, that'd prove it was consensual.
If she didn't, we don't know if it was rape or just nonconsensual-but-with-a-condom.

 

[whichphilosophy]

. According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

She agreed to sex provided he used a condom. This is not a mixed signal.

 

[laughing dog]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

As long as unfair expulsions target men the feminist left is fine with in. More than fine, they make the problem worse by federal government demanding colleges use lowest possible burden of proof and deprive accused male students of any due process rights.

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As long as unfair expulsions target men the feminist left is fine with in. More than fine, they make the problem worse by federal government demanding colleges use lowest possible burden of proof and deprive accused male students of any due process rights.

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

There is one minor issue... how did this ever get to the disciplinary process to begin with?

 

[dismal]

The university is a private institution

I doubt it is with the word "State" in there.

 

[dismal]

What can he learn about consent and respect? He had sex with someone who consented and they never seemed to lose any respect for each other. The university process which was used here is not one which anyone should have a modicum of respect for.

Moreover, it seems like if the point is to discourage this sort of relationship, at a minimum both should be punished. She, being the one in a position with University, should if anything be held to a higher standard.