It’s a wonder there’s any time for actual learning at many American colleges today, given the social justice issues — and more — that are swirling around the campuses. Take the legal issues at the campus of the University of South California (USC) at Los Angeles.
USC is under federal investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) due to a complaint that some educational programs were biased against male students. Four USC initiatives are being examined, including the Smart Women’s Securities chapter and the Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE) chapter.
Last month, the university let gynecologist George Tyndall continue treating students at the campus health clinic despite complaints about his behavior, as the Los Angeles Times reported. He is now under investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department).
Now, there are reports USC has been ordered to pay an unidentified male student $11,965 in court costs after it was found the university had conducted a biased investigation against him.
The male student, identified in court documents only as John Doe, was investigated for allegedly assaulting a female student; the university then expelled him. After Doe brought legal action against the university, the court discovered USC had taken an “adversarial position” against him, as Campus Reform noted.
Judge Elizabeth Allen White rendered the judgment in late June. One of the most disturbing court findings is that the male student in question and his adviser were referred to as “mother f***ers” by USC Title IX officers. The lawsuit alleged the officers referred to the female student who claimed the assault as “cute,” “intelligent,” and “a catch.”
The judge determined that “USC did not allow the male student to review all evidence against him, withheld contradictory information from its initial report against the male student, and failed to interview a potential first-hand witness to the alleged assault.”
Judge White in her ruling also suggested that male students may benefit from the decision, due to its implication for due process rights at universities.
“The Court also finds that a significant non-pecuniary [pain and suffering] benefit has been conferred upon a large class of persons — namely, individuals at USC who are accused of violating USC’s sexual misconduct policy where a Title IX investigation is conducted,” the ruling said.
“In granting the petition, this Court found, among other things, that, not only was USC’s Title IX Office improperly biased against Petitioner … but also …