Top 10 situations that tell you how Princeton University discriminated against a male student; which is why they now lost a massively important Title IX lawsuit.
1. The History of Schools Discriminating Against Men Responding to Sexual Misconduct.
John Doe v. Princeton, sets the law of Title IX discrimination against men in New Jersey and makes it like in Pennsylvania because Doe v. Princeton is the companion case to the blockbuster Doe v. University of the Sciences. The other state within the 3rd Circuit, Delaware, has a recent case on this issue Juan Doe v. DSU, which we won for Juan.
2. Title IX Coordinators are Always in Favor of the (First) Complainant.
Basically Princeton University lost because its employees blatantly ignored what John Doe told them: That then Alex and now Jane Roe, the person complaining against John Doe of sexual misconduct had victimized him. Princeton expelled John Doe as a result.
3. Lawyer-up as Soon as Your School Starts Ignoring You.
Doe tried to get Princeton’s help as a victim of his Jane (originally Alex) Roe’s intimate partner violence. Princeton’s help never came for John, the male. So that’s when you know you need a lawyer; when your school’s Residential Life Dean, or its Title IX coordinator, or its investigator, ignore that you just told them you are the victim, and not the other way around.
4. In a Trans Case Princeton did not care About the Man or any Complexity.
Turning both a deaf ear and a blid eye, Princeton politicized a complex relationship between students going through one of the most fragile transformations imaginable--Jane (originally Alex) Roe complained about conduct that took place while she was called Alex. Princeton, dealing in effect with a complex claim of trans issues, only paid attention to what Roe said to them, immediately assuming that Doe, the male, should not remain at Princeton.
5. School Title IX Employees Play Hardball Politics to Keep Their Jobs.
Princeton treated the (first complainant) who is a female better. Specifically, the Title IX Director, Regan Crotty went out of her way to politicize what could have been handled in a peaceful way; something that was warranted, given Jane’s tweet (see No. 10):
“Roe explained that she was not interested in pursuing further action. But Crotty advised that Princeton wanted Roe to press charges against Doe.” (All language between quotes comes from the 3rd Circuit’s opinion by Judge Paul B. Matey, who is a Trump appointee).
6. It may please you as part of your sexual habit, but it will get you expelled.
This is what Roe, by the appeal’s court decision time, a woman, complained that John Doe, the man, did to them when both were students at Princeton:
“Whether Doe engaged in Intimate Relationship Violence by: a) repeatedly grabbing and pinching Roe between September 2016 and March 2018, b) choking Roe in September and October 2017, c) pulling Roe’s arm and pushing her to the ground in 2019, and d) threatening self-harm if Roe did not remain in a relationship with him.”
7. The same complaint against Roe from Doe did not show to Princeton that at least Roe was just as guilty. (AKA--a complaint takes away the context and patriarchy bites).
This is what Doe, the man, mentioned that Roe had done to him (while they were Alex) which he was not comfortable with and which fits in the context of what seems to have been a relationship that engaged in physically vigorous events:
“Doe alleged that Roe scratched him multiple times, punched him, and elbowed him in the face.”
8. Men’s Stories Always get Discounted in the Title IX Process.
With relatively similar complaints, arising out of the same events, Princeton treated John, the male, worse and ignored his complaint. Specifically, the difference is both that Doe entered the process as a man and that he did not go to the Title IX Director, Ms. Crotty, whose job it is to create these cases, but rather:
“Concerned, Doe went to the Director of Student Life, Garrett Meggs. In an email, Doe complained that he was being harassed by his ex-girlfriend, who was “spreading false information.” (App. at 48.) Doe explained that he “simply” did not “feel safe” and Meggs recommended that Doe seek mental health services. (App. at 48.) He did not recommend that Doe file a Title IX complaint.”
9. Wonky point of law: Challenge the Disciplinary Report and Finding in the Complaint.
The trial court cannot ignore the man who states in his complaint that even the report that led to his expulsion is plausibly motivated by gender bias. That is, in the 3rd Circuit we no longer rubber stamp a Disciplinary Panel’s administrative washing of sexist expulsions which are cat’s paws and always have been. As the appellate court put it:
“Because the Panel Report was “integral to” and “explicitly relied upon in the [C]omplaint,” consideration is appropriate. But consideration only goes so far. When the truth of facts in an “integral” document are contested by the well-pleaded facts of a complaint, the facts in the complaint must prevail.”
10. Bottom line:
This was a situation where both parties claimed victim status and the acts they experienced from the other were similar. Princeton discounted the man’s victimization and expelled him:
“The Panel’s investigation culminated in a “Report” finding evidence to support the incidents of physical abuse alleged by Roe,5 but nothing sufficient to confirm any of Doe’s claims. Doe received a letter with the Panel’s punishment: expulsion from Princeton.”
Princeton also ignored Roe’s confession:
Vindicated, Roe tweeted “my life is good again . . . worked out boy problems that were never real problems just things I created.” (App. at 56.)
Raul Jauregui
Jauregui Law Firm
I am an attorney and I defend mostly respondents of sexual misconduct in colleges or universities. This is absolutely not my legal opinion or my legal advice, but rather, my reaction to a blockbuster Title IX case and my suggestions on how to protect your family’s college students in these matters. If you’re in this situation, in any way, consult a lawyer now.
As posted in Quora:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-importance-of-the-Title-IX-case-John-Doe-v-Princeton-University