A University of Michigan student was given a four-year suspension after being found guilty of sexual assault–despite receiving little notice of the charges against him, no attorney, no trial and no jury.
Now, the former student, Drew Sterrett, is suing the public university for abridging due process rights guaranteed to him under the U.S. Constitution.
According to the details of the lawsuit, Sterrett and the female friend who eventually filed the complaint went out “socializing” and had sexual relations in his dorm room, where she stayed the entire night. She filed the complaint with the University about five months later but never contacted the police. Sterrett was told if he postponed the interview to consult a lawyer, the investigation would continue without him – which Sterrett’s attorney Deborah Gordon also cited as an infringement of legal rights.
The investigation was halted in September after Sterrett’s accuser expressed second thoughts about having the details of their encounter made public. Sterrett was left in the dark about this, though he was warned to stay away from Mosher-Jordan, the residence hall where his accuser lived.
Ultimately, the university proceeded to adjudicate the matter. Administrators eventually informed Sterrett that he was found guilty of raping his accuser and creating a “hostile environment” for her, and would be suspended until 2016.
Sterrett is currently unable to attend the University unless he admits to committing the sexual assault, a confession that Gordon said is just “not possible” to make. She added that he’s had difficulty finding employment or gaining admission at other schools once institutions learn of the allegations against him.
The federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating two complaints against U-M, including one involving the university’s handling of the Brendan Gibbons case, where the former football player was kicked out of school four years after being accused of rape. The federal investigation is ongoing, OCR spokesman Jim Bradshaw.
“Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers. The main purpose of this work was to examine the objectifying gaze toward women via eye tracking technology,” according to the abstract of “My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women” by Sarah J. Gervais, Arianne M. Holland, and Michael D. Dodd.
This is the kind of study MSNBC commentators can hold up when they’re talking about “rape culture.” Because men are just all Bashar al-Assad and sex is their chemical weapon. Fifty-one percent of the U.S. population is a victimized group now. Don’t you know? Women are like Indians now. You can’t give them a once-over, a polite grin, and be on your way. You can’t notice the fruits of their several-hour morning project of preparing themselves to be looked at. Pretty soon, looking at a woman’s chest will legally be a “hate” crime instead of a love crime.
It’s already started. There was the Massachusetts secretary who sued her boss for staring at her breasts. There was the social media uproar when two tech conference presenters in San Francisco made a joke presentation for an app based on men’s desire to stare at breasts.
This is what the progressives exist to do. They take away our activities. If it’s an activity and it’s kind of fun or pleasurable, the progressives are going to take it away.
Read the full article at the Daily Caller.
A retired police officer was arrested and charged with trespassing this week for witnessing to patrons of a New Jersey mall.
David Wells is a former corporal with the Long Branch Police Department, and over the past year, he has spent time sharing his faith at the Monmouth Mall in Eatontown. Wells says that he likes to distribute materials from Ray Comfort’s Living Waters Publications to shoppers in hopes that it will cause them to ponder matters of eternity. This past week, he handed out Comfort’s trillion dollar bill tract while asking a “trillion dollar” question.
“I simply approached individuals and asked them if I could ask them a question. If they said no, I left them alone,” Wells explained. “If they said yes I simply asked, ‘Are you going to Heaven?’ How I responded was based on how they answered that question.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1994 in the case of New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corporation that malls followed the “historical path of free speech,” in the vein of parks, squares and downtown business districts. It allowed citizens to leaflet both inside and outside malls, but did not endorse other forms of expression such as public speeches.
“The mall security came over and immediately told me to stop what I was doing and to leave the property,” he explained. “They indicated that the mall was private property and [that I couldn’t distribute tracts there].”
When Wells continued to assert that his activities were not unlawful, he was put in handcuffs and transported to the Eatontown police station for processing. He was formally charged with trespassing and plead not guilty in court on Thursday.
Supporters have launched a petition to defend free speech at the Monmouth Mall.
Read the full story at ChristianNews.net.
Swampscott, Massachusetts Selectman Barry Greenfield is pushing a measure to give police the authority to conduct home searches to check proper storage of firearms.
State law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.
The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.
There are “600 registered gun owners in [Swampscott],” and the selectman wants police to be able to drop in unannounced, enter the homes of each gun owner, and verify compliance.
One reader at the Swampscott patch commented, “Must all guys named Barry be fan boys of the early 1940’s German Political Party?”
The Family Research Council (FRC) released a video in time for Veterans Day that warns Americans about the persecution of U.S. troops who express their Christian faith.
The four-minute-and-44 second video, “A Clear and Present Danger,” features active duty members of the U.S. military sharing their concerns about the “tremendous culture of intimidation and fear in the ranks of the American military right now.”
The identities of the men the faces and voices of the man are obscured to cloak their identities.
“In recent years we have witnessed our servicemen and women being attacked for holding to the fundamental truths of their faith,” the text about the video on FRC’s militaryfree.org states. “As these attacks increase, there are many who are taking a stand to defend their religious freedom and that of their comrades.”
The FRC report, A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military, was released in October. It documents more than 25 instances of religious persecution in the U.S. military.
Full article at CNS News.
A powerful federal appeals court ruled today that a Catholic family-run business does not have to comply with the Obamacare abortion mandate requiring it to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
Francis A. Gilardi, Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, two brothers who own and control two companies that are involved in the processing, packaging, and transportation of fresh produce, filed suit against the Obama administration on behalf of their business, Freshway Foods, a nearly 25 year old family-owned fresh produce processor and packer, which serves 23 states and has 340 full-time employees.
Both companies are located in Sidney, Ohio, a city in west-central Ohio located about 40 miles north of Dayton. The owners, who are Catholic, contend that the HHS mandate requiring coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs – violates their religious beliefs.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled in favor of the brothers. Requiring companies to cover their employees’ contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control and abortion on religious grounds.
“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.
Read the full article at LifeNews.com.