The Gender Bias Lawsuit and Its Implications
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FALL 2015 A MAGAZINE OF STUDENT THOUGHT AND OPINION VOL XVIII, NO. I A Question of Justice The Gender Bias Lawsuit and its Implications Inside: Stories on the Presidential Search, Mock Con, the Liberal Arts, and More Dear Reader, Welcome to The Spectator’s first issue of the 2015-16 academic year. Much has happened across our campus, and within these pages resides a collection of articles that cover such issues in depth for your reading pleasure. Topping our list of headlines is the lawsuit against Washington and Lee from a former student accused of sexual assault this past year. The lawsuit has drawn W&L into a larger, national discussion on how institutions should deal with sexual misconduct on their campuses. The final result of the lawsuit will emerge in April, but the consequences of W&L’s policies are already being ad- dressed by national publications that perceive our school to have acted unjustly. With this in mind, The Spectator carefully and tactfully investigated this sensi- tive issue, focusing our research on information within the public domain. We are not here to take sides, but to evaluate the lawsuit’s impact on the student body and represent the facts thus far, as they are, to our readers. The Liberal Arts and their future at Washington and Lee presents another im- portant theme for this issue. From a detailed explanation of the University’s Presidential search process, to the abrupt cancellation of the Mikado and sub- sequent questions of censorship, to an inquiry concerning our broad FDR re- quirements, our writers address many aspects of W&L’s unique Liberal Arts education and the challenges facing them. The Spectator is always interested in hearing your own thoughts as members of the community, so write us by email, comment on our articles online at http:// wluspectator.com/, or send us a letter to the editor and we’ll get back to you. The Spectator Staff VOLUME XVIII, ISSUE I FALL 2015 Editor-in-Chief Letter From Staff ...........................Inside Cover Benjamin Gee ‘18 Outcome Uncertain, John Doe Lawsuit against W&L Moves Publisher Forward ...........................................2-4 Ben Whedon ‘18 Benjamin Gee Business Manager A Time of Transition: The Search for a New President . .5-6 Burke Ugarte ‘17 Ben Whedon Layout Editor A Tough Race to Call: Commentary from Mock Con 2016. 7 Catherine Ahmad ‘18 David Zekan Assistant Editors The Blessing and Burden of Choice: George Washington and Chuck Dodge ‘17 W&L ................................................ 8 Wirt Dunbar ‘17 Tim Lindsay ‘17 Catherine Ahmad Camille Hunt ‘17 Amidst increased tuition and rising student debt, W&L Chief of Advertising degree maintains value ............................... 9 Sam Blakeney ‘17 Phil Aiken and Burke Ugarte Head of Development “The Ethics of Citizenship”: Making Real-World Choices Stephen Mitchell ‘17 Clear as Mudd ...................................... 10 Camille Hunt Head of Operations Phil Aiken ‘17 A Time for Choosing: Anxiety and the Liberal Arts.......11-12 Paul Lagarde Senior Advisers Paul Lagarde ‘16 Yellowface Backlash Changes Touring Plans, Switches W&L Catherine Roach ‘16 Opener ......................................... 13-14 Christian von Hassell ‘16 Marshall Woodward ‘16 Chuck Dodge Ty Mitchell ‘16 A Bastion of the Liberal Arts .......................... 15 Andrew Fox ‘16 Tim Lindsay Staff Writers Satirical Spectator ................................... 16 David Zekan ‘16 Andrew Fox Letter to the Editor .................................. 17 Email: [email protected] Web:wluspectator.com Thoughts and Musings ................................ 18 Benjamin Gee Cover Picture: Helen Clay Outcome Uncertain, John Doe Lawsuit against W&L Moves Forward By Ben Gee “But we can never say this enough: Mistreatment of accused students perceived to be inherently guilty, the others is wrong by any standard of our society, by any inevitable corollary to our doctrine against doubting the standard of right or wrong. It is especially wrong in this victim? These are questions we now have to confront at community, where we — rightly — insist on developing W&L. within our students the moral obligation to treat others with respect at all times and under all conditions; where Washington and Lee University currently conducts we demand that members of our community never sexual misconduct investigations internally. This policy stand idly by when we see others violate those values. seeks to deal with incidents independent of law enforce- It is wrong anywhere. It is espe- ment, even though the Federal cially wrong at this university.” Government defines them as crimes. As a result, W&L has – Washington and Lee Uni- become involved in an unwel- versity Press Release, “A Time come court battle after attempt- to Examine, Affirm our Com- ing to resolve a case of sexual mitments,” Dec. 1, 2014 misconduct on our campus. By assuming responsibility for s the national con- these cases, W&L has delayed at versation on campus least two of its students a clear sexual assault contin- adjudication of justice. uesA to grow in size and scope, we once again witness the law Beginning in late 2014, Wash- of unintended consequences. WikiMedia Commons ington and Lee University In 2011, the US Department has occupied a spotlight of Education’s Office for Civil in the national sexual as- Rights (OCR) published a let- sault policy debate with the ter calling for universities to case of John Doe vs. W&L. take the lead on dealing with In November 2014, W&L sexual misconduct. The OCR found a student, John Doe, letter threatened schools with guilty of sexually assault- the loss of Federal funding ing another student (‘Jane and other consequences if they Doe’), and expelled him failed to solve sexual from the school. John assault problems on Lynchburg, Virginia Courthouse where the Trial will likely take place Doe responded by fil- campus. Since then, ing a lawsuit against using the guidelines published by the Federal Govern- W&L alleging three things: First, that the school dis- ment, many institutions have made their policies much criminated against him during the proceedings in viola- stricter. No university wants a dangerous sexual culture, tion of his rights under Title IX; second, the university nor a reputation for creating one. However, the results denied him his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process; of these new policies have incited debate and raised con- third, that a violation of John Doe’s contract with the cerning questions. Many assert that university efforts to school occurred during his prosecution. John Doe de- prosecute alleged rape/assault cases disregard the Fifth mands financial damages from W&L and reinstatement Amendment right to Due Process, and violate contracts to the University. The case remains scheduled for trial with their students. on April 22, 2015, but in April 2015 W&L’s legal team filed for dismissal. Subsequently, in an important devel- Do universities determine guilt in ways opment, US District Judge Norman K. Moon reviewed W&L’s motion this summer. On August 5, Judge Moon that unjustly align to predetermined denied W&L’s request to dismiss the case, and struck gender-based assumptions? Are accused down two of John Doe’s three central allegations. students perceived to be inherently guilty, the inevitable corollary to our The Judge’s report outlines John Doe’s view of events, and the supporting evidence for Doe’s allegations of doctrine against doubting the victim? misconduct by Washington and Lee. The report con- tains the only details yet available to the public. Even if Do universities determine guilt in ways that unjustly partially true, John Doe’s story gives us much to con- align to predetermined gender-based assumptions? Are sider. According to John Doe, he and Jane Doe first 2 / THE SPECTATOR FALL 2015 engaged in consensual sex on February 8, 2014, after an he claims that he had no opportunity at that time to re- off-campus party at which they had both been drink- view the impartiality of its specific representatives. The ing. John Doe reached out to Jane Doe the next day and list included W&L Professor David Novack, who has throughout the next month by phone and facebook, written academic pieces that indicate bias in sexual mis- and she reciprocated his amity. They engaged in sex an- conduct cases such as “Rape Nullification in the United other time the next month, later characterized by both States: A Cultural Conspiracy.” John Doe indicates that Jane Doe and John Doe as consensual. had he known of Professor Novack’s academic biases, he would have objected to Novack’s inclusion on the John Doe’s account continues; On March 15, 2014, SFHB. However, John Doe was not given an opportu- Jane Doe saw John Doe kissing a different female at a nity to effectively evaluate the impartiality of his judges. party event and left early, upset. By August 2014, John The Administration next denied John Doe’s request to Doe and this other female became an official couple. record the SFHB hearing on November 20, where Jane During that summer, Jane Doe worked at a women’s Doe was present. She was protected from John Doe clinic for sexual assault issues, and in July she began to during the hearing by both a physical barrier and limits tell her friends that she believed she had been sexually to what questions the SFHB could ask her – if any ques- assaulted back in February. At the start of the next aca- tions risked provoking her. John Doe claims that Jane demic year, Jane Doe and John Doe expressed interest Doe’s testimony contained many unchallenged incon- in the same Nepal Spring Term program, and Jane Doe sistencies, at times referring to John Doe as “disrespect- experienced a “strong physical reaction” to seeing John ful, dishonorable, and “having treated her as though she Doe’s name alongside hers on the acceptance list.