Coercion is a curious concept in Providence, Rhode Island.  It involves the use of force or threats to overcome another person’s free will. Its definition relies on the nature of force or threats exerted, as any other definition would make it contingent on the fragility of the person allegedly coerced.

For example, “she looked at me funny” isn’t coercive, even though someone might engage in conduct they preferred not to perform to avoid the “funny” gaze. Or in Providence, “he made me” is sufficient, without regard to any force or threats. Why? Because Providence is where Brown University is situated, and Brown uses its own definition of coercion.

The issue came before District Court Chief Judge William E. Smith when John Doe sued Brown for breach of contract after he was held to have coerced another student to engage in sexual conduct.*  The specific issue before the court was whether Brown violated its policy in its adjudication by finding that he coerced the student when the policy, at the time of the conduct, made no mention of coercion. Instead, Brown used a subsequent policy which did. Judge Smith held that Brown was obliged to use the policy in effect at the time.

While the case was pending, students at Brown decided that it was a good idea to make their feelings about the case known to Judge Smith, and began a campaign to deluge the court with emails.  

As you’ve probably heard by now, a Brown student suspended for sexual assault could resume classes this year.

The university found John Doe – as he is known in court documents – responsible for assaulting a female student in a storage room, and suspended him for two years. But Rhode Island District Court Judge William Smith has lifted the suspension, saying the student “will suffer irreparable harm if his suspension remains in place and he is unable to start the fall semester.” He has issued a temporary restraining order for John Doe against Brown, allowing him back with full privileges at least until the final decision is issued, if not indefinitely. The student he assaulted is still on campus.

And so, the call to action, its own effort to coerce and manipulate:

That’s why I’m asking for your help today, with five minutes of your time.

Please let Judge Smith know that Brown’s community standards on consent are universally known and understood, and that coercion and manipulation is a blatant violation of the policy.

The writer in the school newspaper, Alex Volpicello, urged his fellow students to send Judge Smith an email, and even included a template lest any student be stymied by what to write.

Template to copy and paste

Subject: John Doe v. Brown University Decision

Dear Judge Smith,

I implore to review your interpretation of John Doe v. Brown University.

The survivor was sexually assaulted, and has been abused, violated, and tortured every single day from the assault onward not only by John Doe, but by the legal system which renders her helpless and displays a complete disregard for the wellbeing of our citizenry.

I implore you to understand that the “irreparable harm” supposedly inflicted to John Doe is laughably meager in comparison to not only the harm inflicted on the survivor (as I know that is not what you are addressing in a case of due process), but in comparison to the harm it will inflict on Brown University.

Brown University has an uncompromising, compelling interest to ensure the safety of its community members.

I understand the dynamic of sexual assault. I know the legitimate public safety threat that sexual offenders can pose to females on this campus. I know that many women do not report the atrocities that are committed upon them, not because the assailant cannot be caught (which your calculus solidifies), but because the assailant often does not understand that they are inflicting real, irreparable harm on the community. He is a public safety threat, and I need to stress to you that Brown’s interest in suspending him far outweighs the incredibly narrowly tailored, minuscule, and little-encompassing interests that he holds.

I hope you will carefully weigh this into your conclusion of law. I want you to know that the sullen, tear-drained eyes of the sexual assault survivor — a strong, brave woman struggling with a weight and a harm infinitely more complicated and heavy than you can comprehend — her family, myself, the Brown community, and the country will be watching you.

Thank you.

Would mention of the “sullen, tear-drained eyes of the sexual assault survivor” cause Judge Smith to toss aside the law, lock arms with these students to end the “torture”?  Not exactly.

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 issuing 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. Hopefully, they will read this decision and be educated.

Some might suggest that this effort to deluge the court with the feelings of Brown students was itself an effort in coercion, to use the weight of public opinion to compel the judge to ignore the law and respect the students’ cries for social justice.  That was not the case, as the court held to its duty, neither being as susceptible to coercion as apparently the students at Brown are, nor holding it against the passionate students, too “woefully ignorant” to be responsible for their misguided tactics.

The Tab Brown, reporting on the court’s decision, mentions none of this.

The student body will certainly feel the ruling hinders efforts to ensure the safety of the victims and properly punish the perpetrators. Indeed, the ruling comes after a high-profile campaign by Brown junior Alex Volpicello on The Tab Brown, who wrote a passionate plea for justice that resonated with students around the country.

The students’ abject failure to coerce the court into embracing the feelings of the mob reflects two gaps in their knowledge of civics. The first is that an email campaign was an appropriate tactic to let the judge know of their feelings. The second is that their hyperbolic and factless feelings mattered more than law.  Wherever would students at this “prestigious Ivy League institution” get such infantile and misguided views?

The university published a statement following the ruling:

“The court’s ruling means that John Doe remains an enrolled student at Brown. While Doe is not taking courses at Brown this semester, the judge’s decision provides him with the option to return to campus in the semesters ahead, should he choose to do so. The University will make a determination on what, if any, further action is needed should he indicate his intent to return to campus.”

Apparently, no one has been educated at Brown, including Brown University. Not in the meaning of coercion. Not in civics. Not in law. Not at all. What are the chances that Brown’s reaction to the decision won’t serve to coerce John Doe not to return to a campus where a University has made clear that, should he indicate his intention to return, it may compel them to determine what “further action is needed”?

*The facts of the case were also hotly disputed, and had the case been tried in any competent court, the evidence overwhelmingly failed to prove sexual misconduct. But that issue wasn’t before the court.

H/T KC Johnson