By Robby Soave at Reason Online
A male student accused of sexual assault and suspended from the University of California at San Diego was subjected to a manifestly unfair adjudication process, a superior court judge ruled on Friday.
The decision supports the assertions of John Doe, who said he was not allowed to cross-examine his accuser and had his punishment increased by the university after he appealed the results of its farcical extrajudicial court.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:
This case, Doe v. Regents of the University of California, San Diego, was filed after the university found the petitioner, pseudonymously known as John Doe, responsible for sexual assault after a hearing in December of 2014. Doe was initially suspended for one quarter, subjected to a permanent no-contact order with the complainant, ordered to attend a two-hour sex offense/sexual harassment training, and required to submit to a counseling assessment. Without any explanation, on appeal, his penalty was increased to a suspension for a full year, which required him to reapply to be readmitted. In addition, he was placed on non-academic probation and ordered to attend ethics workshops...
Schools: University of California, San Diego