A federal court has said an expelled student can argue that the University of Denver discriminated against him based on sex. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 15 that John Doe “has provided sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the investigation into allegations and subsequent disciplinary action discriminated against him because of his sex.” The court reversed a lower-court decision that said Doe’s expulsion did not constitute sex-discrimination. Doe’s accuser, Jane Roe, had sex with him and only later, after talking with friends, reported it as sexual assault. But that’s not the first time school officials have treated a female’s complaint more favorably than a male student’s, the court said. The University of Denver has an inferable history of anti-male bias in its investigation of sexual misconduct cases, the 10th Circuit Court found in its remanding of a lawsuit back to the district court. The university, by contrast, argued that it is not biased for or against males or females as such, but that its sexual assault investigation and judicial process may just be tilted against the accused — thus using a sex-neutral classification to avoid liability under Title IX sex discrimination law. The 10th Circuit rejected this argument outright, ruling that all the procedural deficiencies in the misconduct investigation favored the accuser, “despite substantial reasons to discount her allegations.” Doe’s attorney provided sufficient evidence to suggest a history of anti-male bias by university officials.
University officials ignored complaints from male students
University administrators failed to investigate 21 complaints brought forward by men between 2016 and 2018. In contrast 105 complaints were forwarded by women — 14 of which were investigated. Because university administrators have control over which complaints it investigates, the panel found that anti-male bias could be affecting the outcomes of its response to male-submitted complaints. Andrew Miltenberg, Doe’s attorney, told The College Fix in an email that his client wants “an acknowledgement of the truth” from DU “that he did not assault” his accuser, and that the university’s investigative procedures that found otherwise were “biased, deficient, and defective.” Miltenberg added that “while it is doubtful that John Doe can ever truly be made whole again, a reversal/expungement of his records coupled with monetary compensation may at least help him to begin the healing process.”