Landmark victory for due process at UC San Diego

Sound the trumpets far and wide, and share this with your friends and neighbors.Vindication for the wrongly accused has been obtained in the recently-decided case Doe vs. Regents of the University of California-San Diego (UCSD). In this case you will see hard evidence of how this pit of vipers – otherwise known as the UCSD Student Life administration –  railroaded a wrongly accused student through a judiciary process so twisted that it insults the very notion of justice.

This is not a settlement case; as one that has carried itself full-term it establishes a precedent for future cases. Furthermore, the Order by Judge Joel M. Pressman was granted in behalf of the wrongly accused in the name of due process, a phrase which resounds throughout his writing. That makes this a direct hit (albeit one of many that we will ultimately need) on the framework of higher education policy that we need to dismantle.

Background

This case involves John Doe (age 20) and Jane Roe (age 19).  The Complaint argues that John Doe was “effectively expelled from UCSD for allegedly trying to touch Jane Roe in a manner that was unwanted in the morning of February 1, 2014.”

Also, for “four and half months after the February 1, 2014 incident Jane Roe referred to her 24 encounter with Petitioner that weekend as ‘rape.’”  Somehow she was able to haveadmittedly consensual sex with her “rapist” later that same day and send him loving text messages – evidence later suppressed during the administrative hearing.

The Dean of Student Affairs Sherry L. Mallory is a notable “women’s ‘rights’ advocate”; I trust we know what that is code for. According to the Complaint she is “co-chair of the NASPA Western Regional Conference, which advocates against rights for accused male students, including against the right to counsel, against the right to challenge adverse findings in court, and against the right to obtain monetary damages for false accusations.”

John Doe was “tried” in a hearing that was basically a sham, and the panel’s judgment (“findings”) were entered against him by SCSD in December 2014. He then sought to appeal the case to have the school look at it again only for Dean of Student Affairs Sherry Mallory to punish him further for appealing. As mentioned in the Complaint:

This is obscenely corrupt behavior on the part of Dean Mallory.

Attorneys Matthew Haberkorn and Mark Hathaway represented John Doe in this case.The legal Complaint against UC-San Diego was filed on April 2 of this year. Judge Pressman granted the Order on July 10 in behalf of John Doe. While John Doe’s work with the attorneys in this case lasted ~8 months, this case went from Complaint filing to Order in three and a half months. Not bad.

The bogus hearing

Here are the members of the Administrative Panel (hereafter referred to as The Panel):

• Panel Chair – Ms. Rebecca Otten, Director of Strategic Partnerships/Housing Allocations
• Panelist – Mr. Jeffrey Hill, Assistant Director (The Village) of Residence life
• Panelist – Mr. Kris Nelson, Representative of the Graduate Student Association.

Look at their titles. “Strategic Partnerships and Housing Allocations”? “Representative of the Graduate Student Association”? And so forth. Does anyone seriously think these people, either individually or collectively, have the competence to hold a trial for sexual assault and determine guilt?

I will briefly list the key flaws of this sham hearing below; for a more thorough breakdown read the Order granted by Judge Pressman.

1. The case turned upon the word of the accuser alone.
2. Jane Roe “admitted that she voluntarily continued consensual sexual activity with Mr. Doe later that very same day.” This evidence was not considered by the Panel, which disregarded it entirely.
3. John Doe was denied the right to confront his accuser and was not allowed to ask her anything directly. When he sought to question or scrutinize Jane Doe’s accusations his questions were forwarded to the Panel Chair Rebecca Otten, who then determined which questions would be allowed to be asked of his accuser. In particular, Rebecca Otten “refused to ask [Jane Doe] questions 13 through 19, which concerned Ms. Roe’s text messages to Mr. Doe.” These texts revealed John Doe and Jane Roe’s relationship after the “rape.”
4. Not only did Panel Chair Rebecca Otten deny John Doe’s questions to be raised, she allowed the accuser to only halfway answer the questions he was actually allowed to raise.
5. The accuser was hidden behind a screen for the entire hearing so she could not be seen by the panel or John Doe. Judge Pressman noted that this is problematic, stating that it is important in any fact finding process to ascertain “demeanor and non-verbal communication [from the accuser] in order to properly evaluate credibility. This is especially true given that the panel made findings in this case from Ms. Roe’s testimony and her credibility.”
6. The Panel relied on the hearsay and testimony of people who weren’t even present at the hearing.
7. Even worse, after submitting hearsay as evidence The Panel denied John Doe the opportunity to question or refute the hearsay!
8. John Doe invoked his right to remain silent; however, the fact that he remained silent was noted by The Panel as suggestive of him being guilty. In any respectable court of law, remaining silent cannot be used to “prove” guilt.

There are so many personal fouls in this entire process at UCSD that it strains credulity to characterize the conduct of these administrators as mere negligence. The only difference between these administrators and ten thousand others is that this time they were caught.

There have been many other men tossed into the snake pit of an administrative hearing. Unfortunately, many of them did not find any semblance of justice. But the more we see cases like this, the more I have hope.

[Ed. note: this post originally appeared at A Voice for Male Students and is reprinted here with permission.]