Author: Edward Bartlett

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 21, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Seven Massachusetts Universities Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ U. Mass at Dartmouth the Worst Offender

WASHINGTON / December 21, 2021 – Seven Massachusetts schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, sex discrimination against male students, and a presumption of guilt.

Most egregious was the Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth lawsuit. Plaintiff John Harnois was a disabled veteran who enrolled at the University to pursue a doctorate in Oceanography, and maintained a 4.0 GPA during his first year of graduate studies.

The Harnois case attracted extensive negative publicity for the college. One legal analysis concluded tartly, “One would be hard-pressed to find more egregious allegations than those in Harnois.” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/say-what-selective-enforcement-and-46477/

In his ruling, Judge Richard Stearns exposed the witch-hunt style methods utilized by the school’s Title IX office:

“During its investigation, UMass Dartmouth’s Title IX office asked two female students in Harnois’s graduate program to file complaints against Harnois, but both refused to do so. Eventually, the Title IX investigator contacted every female student in Harnois’s classes in search of derogatory information.”

In addition, six other Massachusetts schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of Massachusetts, Amherst – 1 judicial decision
Amherst College – 1
Boston College – 1
Brandeis University – 1
Harvard University – 1
Western New England University – 1

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are under assault by Massachusetts institutions. A listing of the case citations is shown below.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations: https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Citations

Name of College	No. of Adverse Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
University of Massachusetts System	2	Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, No. CV 19-10705-RGS, 2019 WL 5551743 (D. Mass. Oct. 28, 2019) John Doe v. University of Massachusetts, No. 1:20-cv-11571 (D. Mass. April 28, 2021)
Amherst College	1	Doe v. Amherst College, no. 3:15-cv-30097-MGM (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)
Boston College	1	John Doe v. Trustees of Boston College, 892 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. June 8, 2018)
Brandeis University	1	Doe v. Brandeis University, 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. March 31, 2016).
Harvard University	1	Doe v. Harvard University, 462 F. Supp. 3d 51 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020)
Western New England University	1	Doe v. Western New England University, 228 F.Supp.3d 154 (D. Mass. Jan. 11, 2017)

Campus Civil Rights Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

OSU Leads as the Worst Offender in the Ohio Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame’

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 17, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

OSU Leads as the Worst Offender in the Ohio Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame’

WASHINGTON / December 17, 2021 – Eight Ohio schools have been on the losing side of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. Typically handled by school Title IX offices, the cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including a presumption of guilt, lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, and sex discrimination.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is Ohio State University, with four decisions against the institution to date. Highlighting the problem of sex bias against male students, one judge stated alarmingly:

“OSU has affirmatively stated that it promises to continue to aggressively discipline male students accused of sexual misconduct with no reassurance of ensuring fairness and due process in the disciplinary process.” (Doe v. The Ohio State University 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1072 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017)

Ohio State University is not the only college or university ignoring guarantees of campus fairness. Judges have ruled the following seven other Ohio institutions violated due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of Cincinnati – 2 judicial decisions
Miami University – 2 decisions
Case Western Reserve University – 1 decision
Muskingum University – 1 decision
Oberlin College – 1 decision
Xavier University – 1 decision
Youngstown State University – 1 decision

In total, judges have issued 13 rulings against 8 Ohio colleges and universities. Three of those decisions — Doe v. Oberlin College, Doe v. Miami University, and Doe v. University of Cincinnati — made their way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in decisions that determined campus policies in the other states within the Sixth Circuit. The case citations are listed at the bottom of this release.

The campus adjudications that have been challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are widely ignored by Ohio institutions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case Citations

Name of College	Number of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
Ohio State University	4	Doe v. Ohio State University, 311 F. Supp. 3d 881 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2018) Roe v. Adams-Gaston, No. 2:17-CV-945, 2018 WL 5306768 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2018) Doe v. Ohio State University, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017) Doe v. Ohio State University, No. 2:15-CV-2830, 2016 WL 1578750 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2016)
University of Cincinnati	2	Gischel v. University of Cincinnati, S.D. Ohio No. 1:17-CV-475, 2018 WL 9944998, (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2018) Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. Sep. 25, 2017)
Miami University	2	Doe v. Miami University, 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018) Nokes v. Miami University, No. 1:17-CV-482, 2017 WL 3674910 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2017)
Case Western Reserve University	1	Doe v. Case Western Reserve University, No. 1:17 CV 414, 2017 WL 3840418 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017)
Muskingum University	1	Schaumleffel v. Muskingum University, no. 2:17-cv-000463-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018)
Oberlin College	1	Doe v. Oberlin College, 963 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. June 29, 2020)
Xavier University	1	Wells v. Xavier University, 7 F. Supp. 3d 746 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2014)
Youngstown State University	1	Richmond v. Youngstown State University, No. 4:17CV1927, 2017 WL 6502833 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 14, 2017)

California Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

10 California Universities Now Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ USC is the Worst Offender

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 17, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

10 California Universities Now Listed in the Kangaroo Court ‘Hall of Shame:’ USC is the Worst Offender

WASHINGTON / December 17, 2021 – Ten California schools have been on the losing end of a growing number of judicial decisions for campus sexual harassment cases. The cases involved a broad range of due process failings, including a presumption of guilt, lack of timely notification of allegations, guilt-presuming investigations, overly biased hearings, and sex discrimination against male students.

The school with the largest number of adverse rulings is the University of Southern California, with six decisions against the institution to date. In the Boermeester v. Carry case, the judge explicitly affirmed the necessity of cross-examination procedures:

“The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the superior court with directions to grant Boermeester’s petition for writ of administrative mandate. Should USC choose to proceed with a new disciplinary hearing, it should afford Boermeester the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine witnesses at an in-person hearing.” [emphasis added]

In addition to USC, nine other California schools have been found by judges to have violated basic due process, fundamental fairness, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

University of California – Santa Barbara – 2 judicial decisions
California Institute of Technology – 1
California State University – Chico – 1
California State University – Fresno – 1
California State University – Northridge – 1
Claremont McKenna College – 1
Pomona College – 1
San Diego State University – 1
Westmont College – 1

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process protections are under assault by California institutions. A listing of the case citations is shown below.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Citations for California Judicial Decisions

Name of College	Number of Decisions	Case Citation (in reverse chronological order)
University of Southern California	6	Boermeester v. Carry, 263 Cal. Rptr. 3d 261, 279 (Cal. Ct. App. May, 28, 2020) Doe v. Allee, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109, 137 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019) Doe v. Carry, Cal. Ct. App. No. B282164, 2019 WL 155998 (Cal. App. Jan. 8, 2019) Doe v. University of Southern California, 29 Cal. App. 5th 1212, 1234, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146, 164 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018 Doe v. Ainsley Carry et al., Case No. BS163736 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 20, 2017) Doe v. Univ. of S. California, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2016)
University of California – Santa Barbara (UCSB)	2	Doe v. Regents of the University of California, 2d Civ. No. B283229 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2018) Doe v. Regents of the University of California, et al., Case No. 17CV03053 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Dec. 22, 2017)
California Institute of Technology	1	Doe v. California Institute of Technology, 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 10956 (Cal. Sup. Ct. July 9, 2019)
California State University – Chico	1	John Doe v. Trustees of the California State University, et al., No. BS167261 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 30, 2018)
California State University – Fresno	1	Doe v. The Trustees of the State of California, No. BS167329 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 5, 2019)
California State University – Northridge	1	Doe v. White, No. BS171704, (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 7, 2019)
Claremont McKenna College	1	Doe v. Claremont McKenna Coll., 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655, 667 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2018)
Pomona College	1	Doe v. Glick, No. BS163739, 2017 WL 9990651 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Oct. 16, 2017)
San Diego State University	1	Doe v. Rivera, No. 37-2015-00029558-CU-WM-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct. Feb. 1, 2017)
Westmont College	1	Doe v. Westmont College, 34 Cal. App. 5th 622, 625 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2019)

Campus DED Sexual Assault Directive Title IX

Williams College Legal Liability Insurance Policy

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 14, 2021

Williams College Legal Liability Insurance Policy

SAVE

December 14, 2021

Following are the key provisions in the Legal Liability Insurance Policy issued by United Educators Insurance to Williams College of Massachusetts, dated July 1, 2015:

Coverage: Claims-made (covers an insured for all claims, regardless of when the claim event occurred)

Limits of Liability:

Each claim: $25,000,000
Annual aggregate: $25,000,000

Premium: $162,737

Defense Counsel Provision: Split Defense Counsel

Self-Insured Retentions:

Governing Board members who cannot be lawfully indemnified: $1,000
Wrongful employment practices: $150,000
Each other claim: $150,000

Defense Cost Hourly Rate: Not to exceed $325 per hour

Definition of Wrongful Act: Includes “failure to grant due process” and “invasion of privacy or humiliation”

Campus Due Process Free Speech Law & Justice Victims

Abolish the Constitution? College Administrators Need to Shore Up Due Process and Free Speech, Or Face Dire Consequences

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 14, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Abolish the Constitution? College Administrators Need to Shore Up Due Process and Free Speech, Or Face Dire Consequences

WASHINGTON / December 14, 2021 – Students at Yale University (1) and the University of Florida (2) have signed petitions calling for the “abolition” of the United States Constitution. Students explained their support for the petition by saying, “There are a lot of outdated things in there that nowadays aren’t accepted” and the Constitution “wasn’t written for the 21st century.”

The petitions highlight an erosion of support for bedrock constitutional protections such as due process. As a result, administrators are seeing an increase in campus vigilantism, which ignores the presumption of innocence for the accused. Following are three recent cases:

A former student at SUNY-Purchase filed a lawsuit against the college, charging the school failed to protect him from student harassment over an alleged sexual assault incident (3).
Last month a group of Syracuse University protesters swarmed the front of a college fraternity, chanting the name of an alleged offender and demanding, “Kick him out, kick him out. ‘Alleged’ my ass, ‘alleged’ my ass.” (4)
At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, the student newspaper ran an article describing three male students as “admitted rapists,” despite the fact that the three had won their Title IX case and the local prosecutor declined to press charges. As a result, the institution agreed to pay $450,000 in response to a defamation lawsuit (5).

Free speech is also under attack.

A recent survey of students at 159 leading colleges conducted by College Pulse, FIRE, and RealClear Education reveals that only 16% of institutions received a “Green” rating, meaning that institutional policies “do not seriously threaten speech.” (6) One student at Arizona State University confided, “As an English major, just about every class I’ve taken has touched on the ‘dangers’ of white people and whiteness….As a student, I don’t feel comfortable calling this what it is: a racist ideology.”

Faculty members are seeing a curtailment of their free speech rights as well, giving rise to groups such as the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (7) and Princetonians for Free Speech (8).

Due process and free speech are bulwarks of a democratic and free society. College administrators who acquiesce to campus activists are likely to face dire consequences including continued declines in student enrollments (9), shrinking budget allocations (10), decreased alumni contributions (11), and costly lawsuits (12).

Citations:

Coercive Control Parental Alienation

Murder Suicide and False Allegations at the Hands of Female Perpetrators

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 9, 2021

Murder Suicide and False Allegations at the Hands of Female Perpetrators

By Joan T. Kloth-Zanard

December 9, 2021

The statistics don’t lie, and nor do these three stories. Men are abused at the same rate as women, the difference is that women are more likely to use a deadly weapon or poison to do it, while men are more likely to use physical abuse. The one thing they have in common, is they both use psychological abuse at the same rate. But this article is not about psychological abuse but about how women are just as likely and capable of harming their male partners and their children.

John Mast

John Mast was an alienated father who was murdered by his ex-father-in-law after being awarded joint custody of his children. He spent years fending off false allegations of abuse and many other charges. Finally, the courts found him not guilty and awarded him back joint custody. On February 5, 2021, the day he was to pick his children up, he was gunned down by his ex-father-in-law. John’s ex-wife had convinced her father that John was unsafe and a danger to his children. John was gunned him down, in the back, in a parking lot, in front of his children and family. [04-23-2021, PASI (PAS Intervention & ISNAF (International Support Network of Alienated Families) Panel Discussion with Attorney Kevin Hickey]

Rod McCall

Like John Mast, Rod McCall, was a targeted father who spent years defending himself from false allegations of abuse and neglect. Rod is a survivor of Parental Alienation but his son was not. In the course of his divorce, his ex-wife attacked his name, his reputation and accused him of a false crime. This resulted in his losing his job, getting arrested and having his publicly ridiculed on the local Dallas/Ft. Worth news stations. He was proven not guilty and after a weeklong jury trial, the mother was stripped of her parental rights. The three attorneys, Father’s, Mother’s and the Child’s, begged the judge to make the custody exchange at the courthouse, but the judge insisted on allowing the mother to go home and say her goodbyes. Before they realize it, the mother had left and gone home to do more than just say goodbye. On October 21, 2011, she killed their son and herself less than an hour after the jury verdict was handed down. (04-23-2021, PASI & ISNAF Panel Discussion with Rod McCall)

Ray Reynolds

Now, let’s consider the case of Ray Reynolds, whose ex-wife and the female Guardian Ad Litem Attorney (GAL) for the child, accused him of sexually abusing his toddler daughter. It cost him $250,000, the loss of his business and severe complex emotional trauma to prove his innocence and win back sole custody of his daughter. But before he could get his daughter back, the GAL assisted the mother in illegally leaving the USA and going to Costa Rica with the child. But his case could have gone seriously sideways if he had not had the funding to fight for his rights, along with the support of family and friends. He also took the unprecedented brave step to go after the GAL by filing a massive grievance against her. He had a massive amount of evidence which may have prevented him from being attacked with another false criminal allegation by the GAL. Sadly, he still has not got his daughter back despite being awarded sole custody. And the GAL was not held accountable for her actions because of her strong connections. And while she has not taken any new GAL cases, this has not stopped this GAL from continuing to have parents and anyone who crosses her path falsely arrested and jailed. (Personal Conversations with Ray Reynolds since May 2015).

Conclusions

These three cases are nothing new, nor are they rare. But for many parents, they know how dangerous the other parent can be and so they just give up because they fear being murdered or harmed or that their children will be. They realize that the other parents’ wealth, political connections, and intense hatred for them, can buy them. So, these parents back off to save themselves and the children they love.

This leaves us with a huge concern. After all these decades of cases of coercive control and domestic violence by proxy, these horrific events are still occurring. There seems to be a serious lack of proper training, education and understanding of the psychological dynamics involved in custodial interference cases, where incessant allegations of abuse occur. And there seems to be a strong underworld like current with “Good Ol’ Attorneys” network to control family court cases. With the majority of cases of alienation involving false allegations, this is a serious issue because it wastes time, money and resources necessary for true cases of abuse. It also means that true victims end up being ignored or harmed.

How can this be in a Child’s Best Interest? How can this be considered okay or even normal? We need to fix our dysfunctional family courts and the agencies around them. We need to stop the corruption and buying of officials. We need to stop the Mob Mafia Good Ol’ Attorneys network that allows much of the false allegations and criminal charges. But most important, we need to be able to better recognize which parents are a danger to themselves and others.

Citations for General Reference:

1. Coalition to End Domestic Violence, 2021, Thirty-Years of Domestic Violence Half-Truths, Falsehoods, and Lies Coalition to End Domestic Violence. www.EndtoDV.org A pre-publication copy of this Special Report was provided to the DOJ Office on Violence Against Women to assure the report’s factual accuracy. No reply was received from the OVW.

2. Harman, J. J., & Matthewson, M. (2020). Parental alienating behaviors. In D. Lorandos and W. Bernet (Eds.), Parental Alienation– Science and Law, pp. 82-141. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

3. Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2018). Influence of intimate terrorism, situational couple violence, and mutual control on male victims. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 612-623.

4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). SF3.4: Family violence. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF3_4_Family_violence_Jan 2013.pdf

5. Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557-583

Campus Department of Education Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date December 8, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

16 New York Colleges Now Listed in the Kangaroo-Court ‘Hall of Shame.’ Syracuse U. is Worst Offender.

WASHINGTON / December 8, 2021 – Judges have issued 31 rulings in recent years against 16 New York state colleges and universities. These decisions reveal widespread due process deficiencies for sexual harassment cases, which are typically handled by campus Title IX offices.

By far the worst offender is Syracuse University, with a total of six adverse judicial decisions to date. The school’s motto, translated from the Latin, states, “Knowledge crowns those who seek her.” In contrast, a Kangaroo Court cares more about reaching a “guilty” verdict (1), rather than engaging in an impartial search for knowledge and truth.

Unfortunately, many New York schools have ignored the most rudimentary notions of fairness. As a result, judges have handed down more decisions against New York colleges than schools in any other state, including states with larger populations.

Judges have ruled the following New York institutions violated key due process, Title IX, and/or contractual obligations:

Syracuse University – 6 decisions
Columbia University – 3 decisions
Cornell University – 3 decisions
SUNY Purchase – 3 decisions
Colgate University – 2 decisions
RPI – 2 decisions
Hobart and William Smith – 2 decisions
SUNY Stony Brook – 2 decisions
Hofstra University – 1 decision
Hamilton College – 1 decision
New York University – 1 decision
Skidmore College – 1 decision
John Fisher College – 1 decision
SUNY Albany – 1 decision
SUNY Cortland – 1 decision
United States Merchant Marine Academy – 1 decision

A complete listing of the case citations is available online (2).

The campus adjudications that are challenged in court represent a small subset of the total number of Title IX cases, suggesting that due process violations may be endemic at New York institutions. Due process includes timely notification of allegations, an impartial investigation, fair hearing, the right to appeal, and the presumption of innocence.

In 2015, New York enacted its “Enough is Enough” law that mandated a uniform definition of affirmative consent (3). The law did not address the due process rights of the accused.

More information about these and other judicial decisions is available in SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions Affirming the 2020 Title IX Regulations (4).

Citations:

Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

New York: National Champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 29, 2021

New York: National Champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts

SAVE

November 29, 2021

Over the past decade, over 200 judicial decisions have been handed down against colleges across the country for violations of the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. According to SAVE’s Analysis of Judicial Decisions,[1] these cases involve a broad range of due process violations:

Bias Towards Complainant: 34 judicial decisions
Guilt-Presuming Investigations: 33 decisions
Inadequate Cross Examination: 31 decisions
Institutional Sex Bias: 27 decisions
Lack of Proper Notice: 27 decisions
Failure to Give Respondent Access to Evidence: 23 decisions
Flawed Evaluation of Evidence: 20 decisions

Further analysis reveals that the state with the largest number of decisions against institutions of higher education is New York. Since 2013, trial and appellate courts have handed down 31 decisions against 16 New York schools.

The following schools were the losing party – the citations for all decisions are shown at the end of this article:

Syracuse University – 6 decisions
Columbia University – 3 decisions
Cornell University – 3 decisions
SUNY Purchase – 3 decisions
Colgate University – 2 decisions
RPI – 2 decisions
Hobart and William Smith – 2 decisions
SUNY Stony Brook – 2 decisions
Hofstra University – 1 decision
Hamilton College – 1 decision
New York University – 1 decision
Skidmore College – 1 decision
John Fisher College – 1 decision
SUNY Albany – 1 decision
SUNY Cortland – 1 decision
United States Merchant Marine Academy – 1 decision

In general, these decisions did not turn on subtle interpretations of nuanced legal precepts. Rather, they were based on a judicial recognition that colleges are failing to observe the most fundamental notions of fairness. In many cases, the bias was so flagrant as to suggest that sex bias was the motivating factor. This represents a violation of the federal Title IX law, which is expressly designed to ban discrimination on the basis of sex.

A Kangaroo Court is defined as “an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty.” These 31 decisions reveal that New York State now holds the dubious honor of being the national champion of Campus Kangaroo Courts.

The greatest embarrassment falls upon Syracuse University, with a total of six adverse judicial decisions, revealing a broad range of due process failings. The school’s motto, translated from the Latin, states, “Knowledge crowns those who seek her.” By definition, a Kangaroo Court cares more about reaching a “guilty” verdict than engaging in an impartial search for knowledge and truth.

One wonders whether SU administrators appreciate the irony.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Judicial Decisions Against New York Schools, 2013 – 2021

Name of College	Number of Decisions	Public or Private	Case Citations (in reverse chronological order)
Syracuse University	6	Private	Fraternity of Alpha Chi Rho, Inc. v. Syracuse University, 141 N.Y.S.3d 296 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2021) Doe v. Syracuse University, 457 F. Supp. 3d 178 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) Doe v. Syracuse University., 440 F. Supp. 3d 158, 168 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2020) Doe v. Syracuse University, No. 5:18-CV-377, 2019 WL 2021026 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019) Noakes v. Syracuse University, No. 5:18-cv-00043-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2019) Doe v. Syracuse University, 341 F. Supp. 3d 125, 138 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 16, 2018)
Columbia University	3	Private	Doe v. Columbia University, Case 1:20-cv-06770-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Aug 1, 2021) Feibleman v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York, No. 19-CV-4327 (VEC), 2020WL 882429 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020) Doe v. Columbia University, 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016)
Cornell University	3	Private	Matter of Doe v. Cornell University, EF2016-0192. 2017 NY Slip Op 30142(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 20, 2017) Doe v. Weill Cornell Univ. Med. School, 1:16-CV-03531 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2016) Prasad v. Cornell Univ., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:15-CV-322, 2016 WL 3212079 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
State University of New York at Purchase	3	Public	Matter of Doe v. Purchase Coll. State Univ. of N.Y., 192 A.D.3d 1100, 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 2021) Doherty v. Bice, No. 18-CV-10898 (NSR), 2020 WL 5548790 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020) Bursch v. Purchase Coll. of State Univ. of New York, 125 N.E.3d 830 (N.Y. June 6, 2019)
Colgate University	2	Private	Doe v. Colgate Univ., 457 F. Supp. 3d 164 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2020) Faiaz v. Colgate Univ., 64 F. Supp 3d 336, 341 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2014)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute	2	Private	Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., No. 1:20-CV-1185, 2020 WL 6118492 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2020) In the Matter of John Doe v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. 254952 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2017)
Hobart & William Smith Colleges	2	Private	Doe v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 6:20-cv-06338 EAW (W.D.N.Y. June 23, 2021) Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colleges, 271 F. Supp. 3d 386, 401-02 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2017)
State University of New York at Stony Brook	2	Public	Doe v. Haas, 427 F. Supp. 3d 336 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) Velez-Santiago v. State University of New York at Stony Brook, 170 A.D.3d 1182, 1183 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2019)
Hofstra University	1	Private	Matter of Hall v. Hofstra University, 101 N.Y.S.3d 699 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 3, 2018)
Hamilton College	1	Private	Matter of A.E. v. Hamilton College, 173 A.D.3d 1753 (N.Y. Ct, App. June 14, 2019)
New York University	1	Private	Doe v. New York University, No. 1:20-cv-01343-GHW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62985 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021)
Skidmore College	1	Private	Doe v. Skidmore College, 59 N.Y.S.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. July 13, 2017)
St. John Fisher College	1	Private	Bisimwa v. St. John Fisher College, et al., E2019005959 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019)
State University of New York at Albany	1	Public	Alexander M. v. Cleary (SUNY-Albany), 188 A.D.3d 1471, 1476 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 25, 2020)
State University of New York at Cortland	1	Public	Boyd v. State Univ. of New York at Cortland, 973 N.Y.S.2d 413, 415-6 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 17, 2013)
United States Merchant Marine Academy	1	Service Academy	Culiver v. U.S., No. 2:17-cv-03514-JS-SIL, Document 48 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2017)

Citation:

[1] https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/analysis-of-judicial-decisions/

Domestic Violence Victims Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 2, 2021

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

November 2, 2021

Nagging has long been recognized as an annoyance in intimate partner relationships. But nagging was never seen as a legal matter.

In recent years, domestic violence activists have replaced “nagging” with a new term: “coercive control.” The CDC reports that each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of coercive control by their partners:[1]

Males: 17.3 million victims
Females: 12.7 million victims

These numbers do not come as a surprise to most. The question is, Do we really want to turn nagging into a legal offense?

The recent House bill, H.R. 1620, dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal” and “psychological” abuse. But the bill never defines what these words mean.

Tellingly, VAWA activists emphasize examples of male abuse, but seldom if ever cite examples of female-perpetrated coercive control. Shouldn’t we be calling out the dishonesty and bias?

CRC Weighs In

In its most recent analysis of the Violence Against Women Act,[2] the Congressional Research Service commented on the controversy.

Noting that adding “coercive control” to the VAWA reauthorization would “expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees,” the CRC issued this stern warning:

“some argue that a violent physical act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. Further, defining domestic violence as a pattern of behavior seemingly excludes isolated domestic violence incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. The proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the pattern of behavior standard.”

The CRC report also cites the Supreme Court’s United States v. Castleman decision, which ruled that the crime of domestic violence must be defined as the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Justice Scalia further argued, “when everything is domestic violence, nothing is.”

Mockery and Betrayal

So we need to ask, Do we really want to turn VAWA into the federal “anti-nagging“ law? Do we want to divert limited VAWA funds away from the men and women who are victims of severe, physical abuse?

This would represent a mockery of the anti-violence effort and a historic betrayal of victims.

Citations:

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

[2]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46742 , pages 5-6.

Campus Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date October 12, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

Email: info@saveservices.org

Newspapers, Commentators, and Organizations Give the ‘Thumbs Down’ to Catherine Lhamon

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2021 – A YouGov survey of the American public found that 68-80% of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — support campus due process. https://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/opinion-polls/ Accordingly, a growing number of newspapers, commentators, and organizations has come out in opposition to the nomination of Catherine Lhamon to lead the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

During the July 13 HELP Committee hearing, Lhamon repeatedly side-stepped direct questions whether she believed in basic due process protections. She also admitted that she rejects the presumption of innocence, instead saying that Title IX adjudicators “should be open to the possibility” that the accused student is not guilty (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/ocr-nominee-catherine-lhamon-repeatedly-side-steps-questions-about-campus-due-process/). As a result, Lhamon failed to win approval from a majority of HELP Committee members. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/08/04/lhamon-nomination-ocr-stalled-tie-vote-committee

Three media outlets, 35 commentators, and 12 non-profit groups — both liberal and conservative – have come out in opposition to the Lhamon nomination, often expressing their concerns in strong language:

Media Outlets

Detroit News: Due Process under Threat on Campus, Thanks to Biden Administration (https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-jacques-due-process-under-041200938.html)
National Review: Biden’s Troubling Department of Education Nominee (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/bidens-troubling-department-of-education-nominee/)
Wall Street Journal: The Senate’s Lhamon Test (https://www.wsj.com/articles/catherine-lhamon-title-ix-college-due-process-11626720890)

Commentators

Over 35 editorials by liberal and conservative commentators have been written in opposition to the nomination. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/08/pr-growing-opposition-both-liberal-and-conservative-to-the-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/ and https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/

Organizations

American Enterprise Institute (https://www.aei.org/education/bidens-office-for-civil-rights-nominee-refuses-to-condemn-racial-discrimination/ )
Center for Urban Renewal and Education (https://curepolicy.org/press/cure-policy-calls-for-senators-to-vote-against-nomination-of-catherine-lhamon/)
Equality for Boys and Men (https://equalityforboysandmen.org/ )
Families Advocating for Campus Equality (https://www.facecampusequality.org/s/FACE-OPPOSITION-TO-LHAMON-5-20-21-FINAL.pdf)
Family Research Council (https://www.frcblog.com/2021/08/will-schumer-go-all-way-bidens-ed-nominee-catherine-lhamon/ )
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/catherine-lhamon-still-believes-the-title-ix-regs-allow-students-to-rape-with-impunity/)
Independent Women’s Law Center and Independent Women’s Voice (https://www.iwv.org/2021/10/bidens-pick-for-title-ix-czar-catherine-lhamon-poses-serious-threat-to-civil-liberties/ )
National Association for Scholars (https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/lhamon-wobbles-on-presumption-of-innocence-undermining-confidence-that-she-can-be-fair)
National Coalition For Men Carolinas (https://www.ncfmcarolinas.com/ )
Palm Beach Freedom Institute (https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/01/catherine-lhamon-and-the-coming-title-ix-nightmare/ )
SAVE (https://www.saveservices.org/2021/07/presumed-guilty-catherine-lhamon-cannot-be-entrusted-with-the-job-of-enforcing-anti-discrimination-rules-in-colleges/)
Title IX for All (https://titleixforall.com/today-and-tomorrow-email-u-s-senators-to-oppose-catherine-lhamons-nomination/)

“Should Catherine Lhamon be confirmed, we are likely to see the resurrection of college sex tribunals with all the procedural fairness of the Salem Witch Trials,“ according to Independent Women’s Law Center director Jennifer Braceras.

SAVE urges all senators to vigorously oppose the nomination of Catherine Lhamon.