SMU sued over handling of rape case

Rape is quite possibly the worst crime that can be committed against a person. Its physical and emotional damages are long reaching and victims are often re-victimized in the justice process. But sometimes the accused is actually the victim of a malicious woman. It makes sense that any person, whether police officer, school administrator, emergency medical professional, charged with the investigation of a rape would want to act in a manner above reproach. The Duke case seems to underscore that point, but before that case was even a party with a stripper, something similar was happening at SMU.

By MICHAEL GRABELL / The Dallas Morning News
A former SMU student is suing the university in federal court, arguing that he was unfairly suspended in 2006 after being accused of raping another student after a fraternity party.

The ex-student from Southlake says that administrators railroaded him and that he was never allowed to defend himself before “a kangaroo court sort of proceeding that appears to be a form of political correctness run amok,” his attorneys said Tuesday.

…

According to the lawsuit, the student was a freshman at the business school when he met the young woman at an off-campus fraternity party on Jan. 21, 2006. He says that the two went back to his dorm room after the party and had consensual sex.

But the woman testified at the disciplinary hearing that she began to feel dizzy and sick after taking two sips of a drink that tasted like cranberry juice, the lawsuit says.

She later told her resident adviser that a stranger offered to drive her home from the party and instead took her to his room and raped her, according to court documents.

Despite the conflicting stories, the accused student alleges he never got a fair hearing before the university’s disciplinary panel.

I’ve read the complaint and if one iota of it is true, this young man was the one victimized. The complaint alleges that the woman involved testified that she felt sick at the party but refused four different friends’ offers for a ride home. All four friends testified that she seemed normal and coherent. There was a fifth friend who, during a phone call, offered the woman a ride and she refused it as well. The complaint alleges that the woman engaged in consensual sex with the plaintiff and spent the night. The plaintiff’s roommate’s sworn affidavit indicated that the three spent some time laughing and talking the next morning. There were no medical or police records of a rape. During the hearing, testimony was given by Cathy Souter, Ph.D. who described date rape drugs and opined that the woman was a victim of drugging. There is also a mention that the woman was scared of pregnancy and admitted that she used the word rape too loosely.

The plaintiff in the suit alleges that SMU administrators did not act impartially and in fact, acted as an advocate for the accuser. He says that he was not given time to prepare a defense and that the hearing was held during “Sexual Assault Awareness Week.” He appealed his expulsion and the Office of the Dean of Student Life concluded that there were significant procedural irregularities that denied the accused a fair hearing; the evidence presented was clearly insufficient to support the charge; and the sanction imposed was unreasonably harsh. He was permitted to reapply after a suspension through September, 2007.

This certainly appears to be an injustice, but we’ll have to see if the court agrees. But, even if the plaintiff wins his suit and is awarded damages, he will not be made whole. Rapist is not a label that can be discarded and like the victim of rape, the wrongly accused can suffer long after the verdict. Advocates for victims of rape would do well to seek that justice is served in every rape accusation. When innocent men get railroaded, legitimate cases are watered down and people start dismissing the very real victims of rape.

~ by Miche on June 27, 2007.