Judge Really Doesn't Want To Hear From Public In Sexual Misconduct Case

Hold your comments...

Shhhh! Quiet! silenceIt is important to make it unequivocally clear at the outset that the Court’s only role in this case is to determine whether [John] Doe’s disciplinary “process [was] carried out in line with [the Plaintiff] student’s reasonable expectations” based on the policies in place at the time of the incident… …This Court is not a super-appeals court for sexual misconduct cases, nor is it an advisor to Brown on how it should handle these messy and unfortunate situations. Moreover, the Court is an independent body and must make a decision based solely on the evidence before it.

It cannot be swayed by emotion or public opinion. After the preliminary injunction, this Court was deluged with emails resulting from an organized campaign to influence the outcome. These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this. Moreover, having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court.

—- Judge William Smith, vacating Brown University’s decision to suspend John Doe from campus for sexual misconduct due to procedural deficiencies. A school tribunal found Doe “responsible” for sexual misconduct, but at the time of the alleged assault, Brown had no policy in place relevant to the decision. In the wake of the decision, the school has promised to re-evaluate its policies and procedures.

Sponsored