Shameful star chambers ruin men’s lives

In a recent judgement In a case of sexual misconduct at Cornell University, the judge compared campus disciplinary committees to the infamous English Star Chambers. He warned: “These threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities.

We too should take what happens in our universities seriously.

Our universities have mistakenly taken it upon themselves to set aside our criminal law system and put in its place their own star chambers where administrators make decisions that change the lives of accused young men, derail their education and publicly humiliate them. .

It happens every week in Australia simply because our lily-livered universities are too scared to stand up to feminist bullies demanding action in response to the bogus campaign claiming a rape culture on campus.

For two years I have been helping a young man who was being persecuted by a regional university in New South Wales. I’ll call him ‘Andrew’ to protect his privacy – critical now that he’s finally graduated and left college with great relief to start a new job and a new life. He made a podcast with me, courageously deciding to tell his story as a cautionary tale to male students, warning them of the dangers that await them in our universities.

Note: Having witnessed the callous behavior of our universities, I reluctantly decided to remove the name of this institution from the podcast rather than withhold my comment for fear of legal attack.

For Andrew, it all started one evening in March 2020, when he was a 22-year-old senior pharmacy student.

He was at a typical student reunion that involved a group of kids, including other pharmacy students, happily drinking together. But one student, whom I’ll call “Fran,” went too far and ended up throwing up and needing help to get back to her college room. A few students came with her, got her into bed, and then asked Andrew to watch her.

Andrew’s version of events, accepted by the court, was that when they were left alone, Fran suddenly fell in love, kissing Andrew, taking off his pants, and trying to undress him. He protested, telling her he had a girlfriend, but she persisted in pulling her pants down. Then the other students joined them. Fran’s friends quickly took control, demanding Andrew leave, despite Fran’s protest that he had done nothing wrong and there was no need for him to leave.

Despite this abrupt end to the evening initially, there didn’t appear to be any negative repercussions, with Andrew having friendly exchanges on social media with Fran where she showed no signs of concern. What Andrew didn’t know was that Fran’s friends were at work, rewriting the history of the evening and persuading Fran to file a complaint with the college principal.

This happened, and the university sprang into action and began to conduct its own investigation. Think about it. Here we have people from the administration – who have no legal training – who blunder, encouraging young women to offer their versions of the events that evening. Suddenly there was the suggestion that Fran’s drink could have been spiked and she was conscious and unconscious. Unsurprisingly, the whole scandal took off and by the time the police became involved and sworn witness statements were taken, these colorful additions were part of the story.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand how this compromises the basic principles of police investigation. But that was just the beginning.

Andrew knew nothing of what was going on until two months later when he suddenly received a call from the university administration telling him that he was being barred from the college and university campus until until what was now a criminal case was determined.

Andrew was no ordinary student. He was a child worker who benefited from a scholarship and distinguished himself by the last year of his pharmacy course. He was a resident member of the college, elected to the SRC and a brilliant sports star. He was captain of various sports teams, and had many leadership roles… So many positions that he had to give up when he was accused of a criminal offence.

When the broken Andrew first contacted me, he was facing the frightening prospect of a criminal trial and the humiliation of finding excuses to withdraw from his many academic positions, against the backdrop of malicious rumors about allegations he was facing.

It was a tough year as we found local lawyers willing to represent him in the criminal case and brought in others to jump through the ridiculous hoops erected by university administrators. Boy, those bureaucrats relished their power to torment this young man.

Although Andrew was able to study online in the early months of 2020 during the Covid lockdowns, he had to return to campus for a few days in October for an intensive practical course in order to complete his degree. Of course, the college bullies said no.

Letters from lawyers flew back and forth, and then we had a breakthrough. A friend of the university pulled out a regulation stating that “the university shall take steps to ensure that students are not at an academic disadvantage while a matter is being decided.” Whoops ! This was inserted into the next attorney’s letter and eventually did the trick. Andrew was allowed to complete his course work – but the university decided to withhold his degree anyway, pending the decision of the magistrates’ court.

Convicted criminals are allowed to study in our universities. What gives any university the right to steal a student’s degree – something they’ve spent years of effort and tens of thousands of dollars on? Our laws say nothing about withholding degrees as a punishment for sex crimes. Universities invented this stuff without any proper authority.

So here we have the university telling this hard-working student that it was withholding his degree, refusing to allow him to take his rightful place as a qualified pharmacist, derailing his pharmacy internship and costing him between 30 and 60,000 $ in revenue that year. This situation left him in limbo for six months until a local magistrate could make a decision, and then another eight months while their star chamber went into action.

In June 2021, the case was heard and the magistrate very quickly dismissed the single charge of ‘sexual touching’ Andrew was facing, saying Andrew’s version of events ‘may well be true’. Fran reiterated in court that she didn’t believe Andrew had done anything wrong at the time and confirmed that she objected to her friends making Andrew leave, asking: ‘Why should he go?”

So that was it. Smooth sailing after that, you can imagine. Not with this university in charge…

We had a fun moment late last year when Andrew received an email congratulating him on his graduation and inviting him to apply to have his degree sent to him. He quickly filled out the correct form and hoped for the best. Unfortunately, no diploma arrived by post. The invitation turned out to be a mistake. The bumbling administration then announced that one misconduct charge remained to be determined, and the university planned its own investigation.

Here, our justice system decides that a young man is innocent, but that’s not good enough for this great university. They chose to make another attempt, conducting their investigation and decision-making process. The reason? This university, as is the case with all similar institutions, has decided that it is entitled to its own star chamber to determine these matters using a lower standard of proof. So if he falls into the penal system, there’s still another easier way to catch him.

Sure enough, after months of delay while everyone waited for the transcript of the magistrate’s written judgment, the university set up its investigation and re-examined all the evidence the magistrate had used to determine that Andrew was completely innocent. They then grilled Andrew – denying him legal support in the process.

Eventually, they convicted him of “misconduct” because he should have somehow resisted contact with the drunk girl. This is very different from the original charge of “sexual touching” where he was wrongly accused of having do something wrong, behaving inappropriately towards the girl. The university decided that he was guilty of not do somethingfailing to resist or withdraw quickly enough from a girl’s romantic advances.

Not only do men now have to be held accountable for taking advantage of drunken women, they are in trouble for letting such a woman around.

Andrew was formally reprimanded and told he was not allowed back on campus for three years. The decision was made by a brand new vice-chancellor, who was no doubt keen to throw a bone at the feminists who control the university, as they do in all these institutions. Andrew was understandably upset by this decision, but the punishment didn’t matter. He has no intention of approaching this dastardly institution ever again.

This week, Joe Biden’s administration announced new regulations to undo the meager star room reforms on US campuses that the Trump administration had managed to push through. The the wall street journal underline that Biden’s new regulations will eliminate or weaken basic procedural protections for students accused of sexual misconduct:

“The right to a live hearing? Cleared. Cross-examination? Unrecognizable. The standard of proof for determining guilt? Weakened,” the correspondent summed up, adding that this puts the Department of Education on a collision course with the courts. As he explains, over the past decade in America, judges nationwide have handed down more than 200 rulings in favor of students accused of sexual misconduct, chastising universities for “rushing to judgment in rigged proceedings intended to appease the federal government”.

Our Australian rigged procedures were designed by our universities not to appease the government, but to bow down to the feminist mob. That is why they attract absolutely no scrutiny from our old media who serve precisely the same master. Otherwise, how can we explain why journalists gleefully report on trans athletes – an issue that affects a small number of people in our community – while ignoring the huge population of families whose sons risk injustice in our universities?

Our society’s indifference to what is happening here is a national disgrace.

Read more from Bettina Arndt on Sub-stack.

Do you have something to add ? Join the discussion and comment below.

Comments are closed.