On the day trial commenced as to whether Harvard discriminated against Asian-American applicants, or whether affirmative action is at risk according to whether you prefer your beliefs to be contained in boxes tied up in bows of a prettier color, Andrew Miltenberg filed suit on behalf of a John Doe who was suspended for four semesters after consensual sex with a girl.*

2. On April 1, 2017 Doe and Roe attended a party with other members of their acapella group. The two were good friends and had been celebrating at a post-concert party. Both Doe and Roe had been drinking that night and engaged in flirtatious behavior with one another.

3. Following the party, Doe and another group member helped Roe carry equipment back to her apartment in University housing. When they arrived at the apartment, Roe invited Doe to stay the night, which he did. Thereafter, Doe and Roe engaged in consensual sexual activity. Upon waking up the following morning, Roe expressed regret about her encounter with Doe because she had a boyfriend.

The pseudonymous Roe wasn’t incapacitated by any stretch, but she allowed demon alcohol to touch her lips. Then she tasted some brown sugar as well, which seems to be a recurrent theme among white co-eds experimenting in college. And afterward, she felt regret. Well, if post-hoc regret doesn’t mean she was sexually assaulted, what does?

The plaintiff, a freshman at Harvard, learned a month later that he was the target of its Title IX machinery. Without having been given a copy of the allegations against him, and contrary to his request for an in-person meeting, the Title IX investigator “coerced” Doe into his one and only telephone interview.

On August 16, 2017, two weeks before Doe would have returned to campus for the fall semester, he attended his one and only interview by phone. During the interview, Harrington read aloud her notes summarizing the interviews she had conducted over the course of the  investigation. Doe then read a prepared statement. Following the statement, Harrington asked Doe a few pointed questions, formulated directly in response to witness interviews that were collected prior to Doe’s interview, which we had not had an opportunity to review previously. Doe declined to answer on the advice of counsel.

Afterward, Roe sought Doe’s agreement to resolve her “issues” using the informal resolution process. He agreed. Harvard, however, did not.

This request was denied by Director of ODR William McCants (“McCants”) “based on the severity of the alleged harassment and the potential risk of a hostile environment for others in the community.”

What environment could not be more hostile at Harvard than consensual sex between a white girl**[See critical edit below] and a black guy? And so the matter proceeded, upon the determination of the investigator, to its forgone conclusion. But weren’t there witnesses, even if the investigator sought only to sandbag the rising sophomore?

Harrington afforded unsubstantiated weight to the testimony of Roe’s witnesses, none of whom provided reliable testimony; specifically:
 Roe’s roommate spent the month leading up to the filing of the complaint discussing the incident with Roe.
 Roe’s boyfriend was not present on the evening of the alleged incident and only learned of the allegations from Roe herself after the fact.
 Another witness, Witness 1, who admittedly tainted the investigation by attempting to perform his own investigation and coerce Doe into confessing stopped participating halfway through the process. Nonetheless, his statement was inexplicably still included in the Report.
 Witness 1 made comments within a group chat, a copy of which was submitted to  Harrington by Doe (but not included in the Final Report), that were sexual in nature and inappropriate with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation.

He never stood a chance, not merely because Harvard was determined to find him accountable, and demonstrate how it “believed the woman,” but how the woke allies as well put their faith ahead of facts. After all, what kind of Harvard guy wants to be known as the dude who backed the rapist if he wants to enjoy the hugs and validation of his female classmates?

This was, unsurprisingly, an inquisition, and it was Doe’s misfortune to be the target of Roe’s choice to indulge in a dalliance with a black guy. Race isn’t randomly noted here, but has become a recurrent theme in Title IX sexual assault investigations, where white women disproportionately allege nonconsensual sex after drinking with black guys, typically after their friends frown upon their icky decision. It seems that as enthusiastic as their consent was the night before, it magically morphs into regret the next day. Go figure.

What makes this unfortunately notable is that the accusation is built not upon Roe’s alleged incapacitation, but upon the mere claim that because she drank alcohol, she was relieved of all personal responsibility for her decision to invite Doe to stay with her, to engage in sexual conduct, and to deal with whatever subsequent regret she has for her choice. This isn’t about the inability to consent, but the post-hoc excuse to turn enthusiastic consent into regret-rape whenever alcohol is involved. It’s a magic elixir indeed.

As for Harvard, the handling of this claim was designed to assure with certainty that it would demonstrate that Roe’s claim, no matter how baseless, would end with a vindication of her regret, just as the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, demanded. It’s not just that Roe wanted her sex free of post-hoc regret, or that the witnesses cared more about proving how much they believed the woman, but that Harvard institutionally burned this young black man at the stake for the sake of social justice. So what if it was “regret-rape,” as long as the woman wins.

*Based upon what transpired here, and the unfortunate epidemic of immaturity around Harvard Yard, the g-word was deliberately chosen. If you find it troubling, so do I. The solution, however, is not to use a euphemism to conceal infantile behavior but to grow the fuck up.

**Edit: As was subsequently pointed out to me (h/t ST), Roe is African-American as well (see paragraph 170 of the complaint), and while the issues for black guys being accused by white girls remains, it is not the case here. I’ve left my original error intact, but please be aware that the error was mine and it is, clearly, an error.