Keith Mumphery should sue Michigan State for violating his rights under Title IX

How else will we ever end the continuing violation of due process continuing on our college campuses?

I've written about Title IX before. For a conservative pundit, it's the gift that keeps on giving. What ridiculous violation occurred today that I can mock and denounce? Only, it's really not funny. People's lives are being ruined. And it needs to stop.

Title IX started out as always with good intentions: ending sexual discrimination on college campuses. And Congress knew the perfect way to do it: threaten every college and university in America with loss of federal funds. But the simple directive not to discriminate on the basis of sex has been warped via fiat through the Clinton and Obama administrations into a massive nightmare of kangaroo court trials that violate every principle of due process under the law.

In the past, male students have largely been the victims of this new standard of "justice." A drunken night of consensual sex can easily turn into a nightmare of rape charges and shattered lives. But in recent years, men have been using this same law to sue for violation of THEIR rights. And they've been winning.

The most recent absurdity comes from The University of Cincinnati, where a male student claimed HE was the victim of sexual assault after a drunken hookup. The female student in question has been suspended indefinitely as a result. Analysts are speculating on a nightmare of future scenarios where the first person to race to the dean's door to file charges wins. And this case gets even worse: the female student is also suing and has claimed that the male in question only filed a complaint against HER in retaliation for a complaint she filed against one of their fellow ROTC members leading to his dismissal from the program.

I swear it's stories like this that might bring back chastity.

The court in Ohio (a REAL COURT this time) will have to unravel this mess. Both students in question are listed anonymously on the filing and therefore have issued no comments. Likewise, the University Title IX office has declined to comment. Probably a wise decision.

But that leads me to the other high profile Title IX case to hit the news this week: that of former MSU football player Keith Mumphery. Mumphery, for those of you who haven't been following the case, a receiver for the Houston Texans and graduate student at Michigan State, was expelled by the University and released from the team after being found guilty of sexual assault by MSU at a Title IX trial for which he was not present.

The rape accusation occured after a sexual encounter in which the female claims to have been too intoxicated to consent to sex (as is so often the case with these trials.) She reported the alleged assault to police, who investigated and declined to prosecute. So, she then filed a Title IX complaint against Mumphery with MSU. Again, an investigation was conducted. A trial was held at which Mumphery was present but was not allowed to question his accuser. He was nonetheless cleared.

But, the woman filed an appeal after the original case was dismissed. MSU notified Mumphrey via an old email account, so he did not receive word of the second trial and was not present. And in the second trial he was found guilty. The New York Times accurately describes this as a case of "triple jeopardy." But in Title IX trials, the rule of law does not apply.

So now, his life is ruined. No other team has granted him a tryout. He's unlikely to be admitted to another graduate program after being expelled by MSU, despite being an honor roll student.

And now Mumphery has filed suit against MSU for violating HIS rights. I hope he takes them to the cleaners. I feel compelled to point out that Michigan State is the same university that held a Title IX investigation into convicted USA Gymnastics Dr. Larry Nassar - and cleared him. So, clearly they need to clean house in their Title IX office.

Last September, Secretary of Education Betsy Devos pledged to review the "Dear Colleague" letter issued under the Obama administration and issue new guidelines for handling sexual assault cases on college campuses. Those changes can't come fast enough. Lives have been ruined and assaults have gone unpunished under the current policy. In fact, Congress should act to eliminate these Title IX trials altogether. They are a clear violation of every standard of due process. And as much faith as I have in Betsy Devos, she won't be Secretary of Education forever. We'll eventually have another one, under a Democratic administration. One who may decide that the "Dear Colleague" letter didn't go far enough and that all male students are hereby retroactively guilty of rape.

I don't know whether Keith Mumphery or the two ROTC students at University of Cincinnati are guilty of sexual assault. But rape is a felony. It should be reported to the police and tried in actual courts of law. Victims and defendants should be represented by attorneys. They should have the right to investigate allegations, present evidence and confront their accusers. And college students should not be held to one standard of prosecution while non-college victims and accused are held to another.

But under our current system, whoever files charges first wins, today's defendant is tomorrow's accuser.

And everybody is likely to sue.

Comments
No. 1-10
Alex Wilson
Alex Wilson

@Chevy99 I'm speaking more about cases where both parties are inebriated and chose to become so willingly. I agree that you should look out for other people, but in most of these cases there isn't clearly one party acting wrongly, just two people jointly making a bad decision and then one of them deciding that the other person was responsible for both of them and should have their live ruined because of it.

Its issues like this that make me glad I went to a Christian school with a dry campus and didn't even kiss anyone on the mouth between elementary school and the first time I kissed my wife when we had been dating for a few months.

Chevy99
Chevy99

@alex Wilson, Sex is a two person sport, if your partner is so drunk they couldn't give consent, you mine as well have roofied them yourself because you are still taking advantage of their present state. I know I'm in the minority these days thinking people should look after others, but finding a girl who drank too much doesn't absolve you of the social ramifications of sleeping with her. I know it's horrible for men these days, what with women having a voice and not just quietly dealing with the shame of a drunken hookup, but I don't feel sorry for one of these guys. Next time try having sex sober.

ekay
ekay

Alex Wilson: You nailed it. I doubt that many of these cases are anything more than people making bad decisions, , i.e. drink until your lack of inhibitions have kicked in, then blame someone else when you don't like the outcome.

Alex Wilson
Alex Wilson

@Chevy99

"Call me crazy but I don't think making sure someone is sober enough to give consent is a bar too high. If it is too much of a hastle then you deserve whatever you get. Maybe it will stop both men and women from getting black out drunk."

I think people should be considered responsible for their decisions regarding sex, even if they've (willingly) consumed a substance that lowers their inhibitions, causes bad decision making, etc. We don't excuse someone for getting into a car accident because they were drunk. We don't let someone off the hook for sucker punching a police officer while they're high. Why should we discount someone's decision to consent to sex, when they willingly chose to lower their inhibitions with alcohol or drugs?

If someone snuck a roofie into their drink or they're passed out, then it's obviously different since in the first instance they didn't willingly consume the substance and in the second there isn't the ambiguity of inebriated consent, but in situations where the person is still awake, especially if both participants are inebriated, I don't think anyone has committed a crime rising to the level of governmental (including college judicial bodies) intervention.

Merrie_Soltis
Merrie_Soltis

Editor

Thank you. Correction has been made. I've stated on more that one occasion that I'm in desperate need of an editor, but nobody proofreads these things before I post them. I clearly know the difference between "new" and "knew," but when you're in a hurry you make mistakes.