Student expelled after being accused of sexual assault while blacked out; judge supports school’s decision.

A Male Student Expelled⁣ Following Accusations of Sexual⁢ Assault

A ⁣male student attending⁢ Rosalind ​Franklin University (RFU) ⁤in North Chicago, Illinois, had⁢ his dreams shattered⁣ after being expelled due ‌to accusations of sexual assault. The campus disciplinary process seemed to favor his accuser, ⁣leading to a lawsuit filed by the student,⁤ known as John⁢ Doe, alleging bias in the process. However, the judge‌ sided with the university, adding to the growing number of ⁤cases where students have had to fight ⁢against⁣ unfair treatment.

John’s Background and Scholarship

Before attending RFU on a full scholarship, John had an impressive background. He obtained a Bachelor’s degree in global health ⁢and worked with ⁣the Peace Corps in Peru, where he fought against childhood anemia.⁤ He was awarded a ‌National Health Service Corps scholarship, which covered his tuition and provided a monthly living stipend. This scholarship also required him to work in a low-income area for two years⁢ after graduation.

The ⁢Night of the Alleged Assault

John’s aspirations of becoming a physician’s assistant were shattered when he was accused ‌of sexually ‍assaulting a woman while under the influence of alcohol. In similar cases, universities have often sided ⁣with⁢ female accusers who ‍claim they were too intoxicated to remember the encounter. However, in John’s case, the university favored his ​accuser, who was less intoxicated ⁤and claimed to remember everything.

On November 20, 2021, John went to the off-campus residence of a female student,​ referred to as Jane Roe. They engaged in a drinking game, and John consumed several⁣ alcoholic beverages. Witnesses described John as heavily intoxicated, while Jane appeared less affected.‍ It was later revealed that John had also ‌consumed a‌ marijuana edible provided by⁣ another witness.

The Allegations and Inconsistencies

John claims to have blacked out about 30-45 minutes later ‌and has no memory of the rest of the night. Jane alleged that she offered to drive John home, but he⁣ insisted on going to her apartment. She claimed that John initiated sexual contact, but John’s lawsuit pointed‌ out inconsistencies in her story. Jane did not show any signs of resistance, and her roommate‍ was unaware of John’s presence until the next day.

The Title IX Process and Withdrawal

Four months later, Jane filed a formal complaint against John,⁣ accusing him ‍of sexual assault. John⁢ was notified⁣ of the complaint but not provided with any details or specific policy violations. Despite his decision to withdraw from RFU, the university ‍continued ⁣with the Title IX process,⁤ claiming his withdrawal had not been approved.

John’s attempts to confirm the university’s adherence to its policy were met with a‍ response stating⁤ that the Title IX hearing would proceed. He believes that the Title IX office interfered with his withdrawal to continue the process against⁢ him.

A Biased Hearing and Dismissal of Lawsuit

A hearing was held to determine John’s responsibility, during which he claims the university violated its ⁢own ⁢policies and conducted a biased hearing. The university allowed Jane’s advisor to cross-examine​ witnesses but denied the same opportunity to John’s advisor. The hearing panel even prevented John and his advisor ​from hearing testimony from Jane’s‌ witnesses.⁢ The ⁣university’s investigator also demonstrated a presumption of guilt in an email, according to John.

Despite these allegations, Judge Elaine Bucklo dismissed John’s lawsuit, stating that ‌the university did not show discrimination against male students. She also argued that even if the allegations were false, they⁤ did not suggest sex discrimination. John’s fight may not be over as he and his attorneys consider their next steps.

How ‌did the inconsistencies in Jane’s testimony ​impact John’s disciplinary process?

Roe alleges⁢ that John sexually assaulted her during ‌this time. The⁤ next morning, Jane reported ⁤the incident to campus authorities. ⁢John was informed of the allegations and was subsequently suspended pending an investigation.⁡

During the ​campus disciplinary process, John faced several⁤ inconsistencies in Jane’s testimony. She initially claimed that she was too‍ intoxicated to‍ remember the details of the alleged assault but⁢ later ⁣stated that she ⁢remembered everything.⁤ Additionally, witnesses‌ who were present that⁤ night provided varying accounts of the events, ​further casting doubt on the accuracy of ‍Jane’s ‌accusations.

The University’s Response

Despite the inconsistencies in ⁣the‌ case, the university chose to suspend‌ John and subsequently expelled him based on the allegations. The disciplinary process lacked transparency, and John felt ​that the presumption of innocence he deserved was ignored. ​The ​university’s decision not only shattered ⁢John’s dreams of becoming a ‍physician’s assistant but also tarnished his reputation.

John’s ⁤Lawsuit and Its‍ Outcome

In response to his expulsion, John filed a lawsuit against RFU, alleging bias in the disciplinary process. He argued‍ that⁤ he was denied due process and that the university’s decision was ‍based on gender ⁤bias rather than factual ‌evidence. However, the judge ruled in favor of the​ university, claiming that the process ⁤followed by RFU was fair and impartial.

The Impact on the Accused

John’s case is not an isolated incident. Many students accused of sexual assault have faced⁤ similar‌ unfair treatment on college campuses across the United States. These unjust practices ⁤have significant ⁢consequences ⁤for the accused, often leading to the destruction of their educational and⁣ professional aspirations, as well as ⁤their mental well-being.

It ⁤is crucial to recognize that while combating sexual​ assault is essential, it should be done through fair and unbiased processes that⁤ protect the rights of both the accuser and the accused. The current atmosphere on college campuses, where⁢ students are presumed guilty without substantial evidence, erodes trust in the disciplinary system and fails to deliver true justice for all parties involved.


The case of John Doe at Rosalind Franklin University highlights‌ the pressing need for colleges and‍ universities to reevaluate their disciplinary processes in cases of ​sexual ‍assault. The lack of transparency, bias, and ‍unfair treatment ‌faced by accused students only perpetuates an environment of ⁢distrust and injustice.

It is essential that institutions prioritize fair and unbiased investigations, providing equal opportunities for the accused to present their‌ side of the‌ story⁤ and ​obtain legal representation if necessary. By doing so, universities can ensure that justice is served while safeguarding the rights and futures of all students involved in such sensitive cases.

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments