University suspends male student for consensual sexual encounter despite no victim

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Unauthorized penetration and failing to signal an erection. That's a moving violation and a Class-A felony.

Also possible misdemeanor failure to finish last.

 

[Arctish]

Unauthorized penetration and failing to signal an erection. That's a moving violation and a Class-A felony.

Also possible misdemeanor failure to finish last.

Don't forget unlawful entry.

 

[thebeave]

Here's an interview with Grant Neal and his lawyer:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/22/megyn-kelly-interview-college-student-grant-neal-suspended-over-consensual-sex

 

[dismal]

How in hell did Grant end up penetrating her after she told him she didn't want unprotected sex? He couldn't have fallen penis-first into her - he was already lying on top of her. So how did his bare naked penis get into her vagina? Were her lips saying 'no, no' while his penis was saying 'yes, yes' and he picked the wrong one to listen to? Was he testing her resolve? Is he one of those people who push past others' objections and when they have to desist they claim they're offering a compromise? Or was it truly accidental? However it happened, it certainly sounds like there was no prior consent, much less affirmative consent.

Doe may have decided it wasn't a big deal since Grant stopped and put on a condom, but that doesn't mean the university's actions are completely without cause.

Woosh. That's the sound of the big issue going right past you.

If she does not consider herself to have been a victim why is the Sex Inquisition even investigating?

Aren't leftists supposed to be against the government in everyone's bedroom?

 

[Malintent]

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 isn't a coffee shop politely asking a couple that is talking too loudly to please leave.
As an accredited university (private or publicly funded), they have certain obligations and liabilities. 'expulsion' carries harm. a tort has certainly occurred.
At the very least, an award in the amount of a full 4 year college program tuition is worth considering.

 

[Arctish]

How in hell did Grant end up penetrating her after she told him she didn't want unprotected sex? He couldn't have fallen penis-first into her - he was already lying on top of her. So how did his bare naked penis get into her vagina? Were her lips saying 'no, no' while his penis was saying 'yes, yes' and he picked the wrong one to listen to? Was he testing her resolve? Is he one of those people who push past others' objections and when they have to desist they claim they're offering a compromise? Or was it truly accidental? However it happened, it certainly sounds like there was no prior consent, much less affirmative consent.

Doe may have decided it wasn't a big deal since Grant stopped and put on a condom, but that doesn't mean the university's actions are completely without cause.

Woosh. That's the sound of the big issue going right past you.

If she does not consider herself to have been a victim why is the Sex Inquisition even investigating?

Aren't leftists supposed to be against the government in everyone's bedroom?

IIRC, leftists are against the government intruding into the bedrooms of fully informed consenting adults. They don't object to the government policing non-consensual sexual activity. In fact, they're pretty much universally in favor of it.