Post: #1

Article is here

Quotes:

Student Drew Sterrett was railroaded out of the University of Michigan on trumped-up rape allegations for which he was never criminally charged, according to a federal lawsuit.

Sterrett claims the school, which is under federal investigation for its handling of sexual assaults, denied his due process rights at nearly every step in the internal university discipline process. He was suspended from school and is eligible to be reinstated in 2016

Sterrett came to U-M in the fall of 2011, where he was admitted to the school of engineering and the Michigan Research Community, a small group of students who lived together in Mosher-Jordan Residence Hall and were paired with a faculty mentor.

After completing his freshmen year, Sterrett went home to New York. On Aug. 6, 2012, the lawsuit says, Sterrett was contacted by the U-M Office of Conflict Resolution “regarding an undefined student complaint against him.”

Later that day, Sterrett had an interview with the Office of Conflict Resolution via Skype. Sterrett said in his suit he asked if he could consult legal counsel and postpone the interview. He alleges he was told that if he put off the interview, the investigation would continue without him.

“At no point during the call/interview was (Sterrett) given notice of the specific allegations which had been made against him,” the lawsuit says, adding he later gleaned that there was a complaint made against him by a female classmate with whom he had consensual sex in his dorm room five months earlier.

According to the lawsuit, the sex took place in the dorm room after a night of socializing, and the alleged victim spent the whole night in the room. The next day, the alleged victim sent Sterrett a text that read: “You can’t actually tell anyone,” according to the lawsuit

The suit also says Sterrett’s roommate was in the upper bunk the whole time.

The suit alleges that there is no written statement of the allegations against him and the alleged victim has never signed her name to any statement or complaint against Sterrett. The police never have been contacted about the sex and no criminal investigation has taken place.

However, others talked to witnesses.

“It is uncontested that (the alleged victim’s) mother did contact at least two potential witnesses,” according to the lawsuit.

The suit says there is no record of the alleged victim complaining to anyone about Sterrett, despite living on the same dorm floor with him for the rest of the school year.

However, the suit alleges, the university treated Sterrett as guilty from the get-go, including removing him from the special program and from the dorm the following year.

“The university’s policy and procedure required that plaintiff be presumed not to have engaged in wrongdoing,” the suit says. “This presumption was disregarded by (U-M). From the day of the complaint, (U-M) presumed that (Sterrett) had engaged in sexual misconduct and proceeded in accordance with that assumption.”

The suit alleges U-M took longer than the 60 days required by university policy to complete the investigation, and witness statements and interview notes “were intentionally withheld.”

On Nov. 30, 2012, U-M issued its final report finding Sterrett guilty of sexual misconduct. The report included a copy of Sterrett’s five-page objection to the draft but much of it was redacted as “not relevant,” the lawsuit says.

“(The investigator) also relied heavily on her findings of sexual misconduct on a completely irrelevant point – (Sterrett) said he ‘regretted’ having had sex with (the alleged victim). (The investigator) knowingly ignored the obvious – which was explained to her by (Sterrett) that he regretted having sex with a friend,” the suit says. “The report contains statements attributed to witnesses the witnesses subsequently denied in affidavits. The findings in the report draw all inferences in the light most favorable to (the alleged victim), are biased against (Sterrett) and are flat out wrong.”

The suit also alleges U-M ignored the testimony of the roommate who was in the top bunk and sent a Facebook message to Sterrett in the middle of the sex complaining about the noise. The roommate in a second interview following the final report that he never heard the alleged victim say no or ask for help. After that second interview, U-M’s investigator wrote the fact that the other person in the room didn’t hear any request to stop did not change anything.

On Jan. 13, 2013, the university gave Sterrett a ‘resolution agreement’ asking him to agree to be suspended from school until May 1, 2016. He declined.

On Feb. 1, 2013, the finding was upheld by a U-M top administrator suspending him until July 2016.

In May 2013, Sterrett appealed the findings and suspension to a university appeals board, which denied him, despite Sterrett submitting witness affidavits which contradicted the findings in the report.

“The appeals board was obviously biased and invested in supporting the findings of their university colleagues,” the suit says. “The decision of the appeals board was a rubber-stamp of the flawed investigation … lacked fundamental fairness, was reckless, arbitrary and capricious and clearly denied (Sterrett) due process.”

The lawsuit asks for damages and for Sterrett to be reinstated to the university.

Post: #2

Have there been lawsuits brought against colleges yet over this misandric bullshit yet?

I hope he sues the college for millions.

Post: #3

I hope he gets a fuckton of money...
I really hope it sets a precedent for those accused of rape because universities will be held accountable for their kangaroo courts.

Nowhere does it say she filed a complaint only that she spoke to her mother...

This is unfortunate.

Post: #4

Fuck this. I hope he cleans up, university tribunals are probably the worst example of injustice I can think of. And then they have the audacity to ask him to sign an "agreement"...

There needs to be protests about this kind of treatment. Make sure it gets a ton of press and showers the university in negative publicity. They can't be allowed to slip this under the rug.

Post: #5

The schools are above the law. They over-charge students tuition, and they have their own legal system with its own laws. Name one other institution with as much power as the schools.

Post: #6

Wow I feel for this guy. Probably doing everything right in life then bangs some psycho girl and ends up paying for it.

Post: #7

(05-07-2014 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The schools are above the law. They over-charge students tuition, and they have their own legal system with its own laws. Name one other institution with as much power as the schools.

The most fucked up thing is that virtually ALL American universities are run with government money, even the private ones (via tax-funded loans/grants). We're all forced to pay them to spread liberal, feminist, faggot propaganda and fuck men over at every opportunity.

Post: #8

(05-07-2014 01:45 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The schools are above the law. They over-charge students tuition, and they have their own legal system with its own laws. Name one other institution with as much power as the schools.

The most fucked up thing is that virtually ALL American universities are run with government money, even the private ones (via tax-funded loans/grants). We're all forced to pay them to spread liberal, feminist, faggot propaganda and fuck men over at every opportunity.

Yep. Which is part of the reason I don't think students should pay their student loans back.

Post: #9

I'm thinking about posting a link to this thread on their FB page, saying "Welcome male students!"

Stupid idea? I've been drinking

Post: #10

Quote:According to the lawsuit, the sex took place in the dorm room after a night of socializing, and the alleged victim spent the whole night in the room. The next day, the alleged victim sent Sterrett a text that read: “You can’t actually tell anyone,” according to the lawsuit

More proof that;

1: You need to keep a tight ship and get that post-sex text message
2: Slut shaming hurts more men then people realise

Post: #11

What's stopping him from naming names? This extra-judicial kangaroo proceeding doesn't have an enforceable 'rape shield' for the victim, does it? He should get her name out, if nothing else as a warning to other poor saps.

Post: #12

Here's a list of quotes from that article regarding how this man was treated by the college. Read it and tell me this sh*t doesn't sound like something out of Kafka's The Trial:

"never criminally charged"
"denied his due process rights"
"undefined complaint against him"
"He was told that if he put off the interview, the investigation would continue without him."
"no written statement of the allegations against him"
"The police never have been contacted ... and no criminal investigation has taken place."
“The report contains statements attributed to witnesses the witnesses subsequently denied in affidavits."

Post: #13

I know it wouldn't help in this case anyways cause this wasn't in court, but can't you subpoena a chicks phone records if taken to court with allegations? Surely 4/5 broads will text or Facebook something to their best friend about the new guy they hooked up with...

Post: #14

I think the problem is not the U.S Justice system. It's the U.S colleges and the manginas that run them and handle the allegations against male students. I'm reading this thread and I just can't comprehend how it is possible that someone who's in charge of handling rape allegations that could potentially ruin lives, can ignore this mountain of evidence that suggests his innocence, and still go on with ruining the accused's life. I can only think of one thing, they are purposely destroying the lives of healthy heterosexual males in order to ''level the playing field'' in some sick tormenting way.

Post: #15

The only thing thing that will make the universities change their evil ways is to sue and hurt them financially like this guy is doing. He's clearly been wronged and this would be a great high-profile case & potential victory.

Money talks in the US and with our incredibly litigious nature + the huge payoffs and publicity it's the only way to force the colleges to correct their abusive behavior.

But when the president and most of the politicians & media are constantly talking about this (completely false) 'rape culture' all the time it's tough to change anyone's mind, let alone the fem-centric universities.

Post: #16

(05-08-2014 07:28 PM)Akula Wrote:  The only thing thing that will make the universities change their evil ways is to sue and hurt them financially like this guy is doing. He's clearly been wronged and this would be a great high-profile case & potential victory.

Money talks in the US and with our incredibly litigious nature + the huge payoffs and publicity it's the only way to force the colleges to correct their abusive behavior.

The reason they're acting in this Kafkaesque manner is they're scared of suits from the girls and their parents.

They need to be equally scared of suits from the boys.

And use feminist institute shaming tactics.

Lists of 'Anti-Male" schools:

University of Michigan: "Have Sex, get Suspended-- Your Orwellian Dream"
http://www.freep.com/article/20140507/NE...es-lawsuit

Let's start it here and now.

Post: #17

(05-07-2014 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The schools are above the law. They over-charge students tuition, and they have their own legal system with its own laws. Name one other institution with as much power as the schools.

Not true in the case of state universities in the USA. They are subject to constitutional requirements of due process, which is why this guy might eventually clean up in a lawsuit. He can get this before a jury.

Private colleges can pretty much make up their own rules within the context of contract law. Complaints about a private college's disciplinary procedure get thrown out of court unless they contradict some published rules of the college itself, like a student handbook.

One reason to attend a state school.

Post: #18

Quote:"But the main reason “survivors” don’t demand to bring their cases to criminal court is that they know that what they have experienced is something far more complex and compromised than criminal sexual assault, almost invariably involving mixed signals, ambiguity, and a large degree of voluntary behavior on their part.

Girls often drink themselves blotto both before and during parties precisely to lower their sexual inhibitions. The authors of campus-rape surveys discovered early on that when the students whom the pollsters deem rape victims are asked if they think they have been raped, the “victims” overwhelmingly respond in the negative. In the 1986 Ms. survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

The alleged campus-rape epidemic could be stopped overnight if women’s advocates sent a simple message to girls: Don’t get drunk and get into bed with a guy whom you barely know. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night. And most controversially: Demand that any boy court you long enough to reveal his character and his respect for yours before you even think about having sex with him. The feminist advocates are more interested in preserving the principle of male fault, however, than in protecting females from regretted sex. And so rather than sending an unequivocal message of personal empowerment and responsibility, they put the entire onus of sexual responsibility on males, treating females as the invariably helpless victims of the male libido."

[…]

Quote:"...the colleges’ student-services deans and rape counselors, who live precisely for these moments of conflict, will grovel before their accusers and promise to make amends. The New York Times has been hawking an article from Columbia’s student newspaper that purported to expose the college’s inadequate response to sexual assault. The original article triggered campus protests against the administration and penitence from the grown-ups. What it mostly showed, however, was the hold of the gender-studies mentality on far too many students. The student journalists were outraged that the school’s sexual-assault policies refer to “rape” “euphemistically” as “non-consensual sexual intercourse,” and to alleged “rapists” as “respondents.” One “survivor” — “Natalie” (a pseudonym) — complains that a Title IX investigator used abbreviations in taking down her story, resulting in “holes” that made her account not “sound like a strong case” (it probably wasn’t) and keeping her “from having ownership over the retelling of her history with emotional and sexual violence.” Natalie had been in a “fragile state” from a previous “emotionally abusive relationship,” and promptly entered into another “‘destructive and unhealthy’ physical relationship” with another male that was “confusing at best.” That male, the article explained, “often forcefully pinned [Natalie’s] arms back against the mattress during sex; [she] would cry during and after they slept together. Not until months after their break up did Natalie recognize this as non-consensual intercourse.” If Natalie was unhappy with their sexual relationship, she would have been wise to have put an end to it. The Columbia student article provided no evidence of flawed assault policies, beyond the mere fact that the school did not issue guilty findings in Natalie’s case (which she did not fully cooperate with) and one other."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/377492/print

Post: #19

This is why I noted that many schools are being coached to change their policies language away from "rape" to consent jargon. This guy is going to clean house but to U of M, a $10 million suit is peanuts to the billions of hoarded public money, donations, and debt dollars they sit on. But it will become a annoying recurring issue and this they will side step it by language changes in school policy.

The school governance structures are overrun by feminists whom basically hold the apparatuses hostage and force them to enact feminist favorited policies that discriminate openly against men. They still view school as a man box even though men are fleeing higher education in record rates and the majority of campuses now having at leaf 60% of true student body a women. They still feel the need to push the destructive policies to further handcuff men and are far from done. Many want mandatory "consent" workshops/training for all first year men to teach them that showing normal sexual affections/behaviors is classified as rape. All this does is reinforce fear in men and the clean slate and "do no wrong" shit for women.

It's all a joke. These schools are to big to fail also. These institutions can't even die. I support the notion f not paying back student loans also. It's the only way to cause quick damage to shills and force the Government to change it's tune to make sure it can get its money back.

Post: #20

The universities are increasingly in an impossible position. The White Knight House is threatening the nation's universities with justice department investigations if they don't sufficiently prosecute sexual assault allegations. So they can get sued by the feds, or sued by falsely accused students like this Michigan man.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

This doesn't exculpate the universities of course, but know that it's not coming entirely from universities (although you could argue the whole rape hysteria movement did originate in universities). Obama's administration is behind the latest push. McCain would have been just as bad. Not sure about Romney.

Post: #21

EXCELLENT!

College boys and their parents need to file lawsuits like CRAZY. This is perfect.

Yes, the Obama moron administration is sucking up to the Feminists. The only way to fight this is to FIGHT HARD with no mercy.

Sue the shit out the Universities. Create a lawsuit pool, get a couple law firms to specialize in it, and make sure that every boy expelled is encouraged to file suit.

Gather up groups of men students and go protest. If Feminist protesters come out too, then scream bloody murder at them. Throw eggs and spit at them. These women need to know that men are going to fight back hard.

Then go to Sororities and get the other women, the non-ugly, non-lesbian women, to start fighting back against the lesbian Feminist haters.

But mainly, file a lot of lawsuits.

Post: #22

While I like the idea, I'm not sure what this would do. Unless I'm mistaken, student loans are handled by banks but arranged by the government. Not only that, but even declaring bankruptcy cannot allow you to escape student loan debt anymore. The government can and will garnish your paychecks and make your life hell for doing this. It's a system that we can't overcome, unless...

Unless we simply refuse to take student loans. Unless we refuse to go to university. Basically, MGTOW but still banging girls.

I can be on board with that, except that it would suck, as my passion required an education. I suppose that nothing worthwhile was ever easy, and that "but it wouldn't be as nice!" is a shitty excuse.

(05-07-2014 06:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:45 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:14 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The schools are above the law. They over-charge students tuition, and they have their own legal system with its own laws. Name one other institution with as much power as the schools.

The most fucked up thing is that virtually ALL American universities are run with government money, even the private ones (via tax-funded loans/grants). We're all forced to pay them to spread liberal, feminist, faggot propaganda and fuck men over at every opportunity.

Yep. Which is part of the reason I don't think students should pay their student loans back.

Post: #23

If every student collectively did not pay their minimum next month the house of cards would fall overnight. For how "bright" higher-education is supposed to make students (me included), many students harp and march spinning their wheels on useless initiatives to go after "the system". Simply telling each student to not pay their minimum would bring every corrosive institution (Government, The Banks, Education,) to their knees. Students don't act of fear and pure complacency to the system they know full well is fucking them royally from behind.

Establishment vs Common folk talk:
We will fuck your Credit and you can't get some jobs.... Great there are few and not any to begin with. Fuck you.

You won't be able to get a mortgage for your first home... That's gong to tank in value?. Fuck you.

The IR... IR whom? Come round up me and 10 million of my counter-parts. Fuck you.

You will be denied further student loans. ... Can't be serious. I don't need any more expensive paper, you need me more then I need you. Fuck you.

...

See this is common strategic gamesmanship. The system needs prey to leech on more then the collective needs it. Its just a matter of how bold and how much of a backbone the collective has (next to none) to see if it would ever push such a powerful move.

Post: #24

You're speaking as if the masses would all begin to do it at once. Individuals will just get smashed for trying this. You'd need a large minority or a majority to cause any sort of real damage.

The nature of most people is that of a sheep. We can try to get a movement started, but how would you go about doing that? Practically, I mean.

Post: #25

It could bed just like fat shaming week the RoK had a couple of months ago. There could be a "Don't pay your student loan payment this month" week. With Roosh's and RoK's twitter following, also with the support of some other mainstream backers on twitter and elsewhere on the web, collectively you could crush the banking system. Use some hashtags, someone set up a website explaining the process, and then unleash the wrath of the in-debt students.

It doesn't even have to be a manosphere only thing. Somehow get it to spread outside of the manosphere. If it gets covered by mainstream media, there would be plenty of people wanting to get in. Especially young, tech-savvy grads who don't have a lot of assets.

You would start spreading the word in the middle of July, telling people to not make their next payment. There wouldn't be enough time for anyone to pass a bill regarding not paying student loan debts. Suddenly banks would falter. If you could get people to stay on board for a couple of months, the whole system would explode and the economy would be shredded to bits.

Don't do anything illegal. But also don't forget to short the banking stocks