Article is here
Quotes:
Student Drew Sterrett was railroaded out of the University of Michigan on trumped-up rape allegations for which he was never criminally charged, according to a federal lawsuit.
Sterrett claims the school, which is under federal investigation for its handling of sexual assaults, denied his due process rights at nearly every step in the internal university discipline process. He was suspended from school and is eligible to be reinstated in 2016
Sterrett came to U-M in the fall of 2011, where he was admitted to the school of engineering and the Michigan Research Community, a small group of students who lived together in Mosher-Jordan Residence Hall and were paired with a faculty mentor.
After completing his freshmen year, Sterrett went home to New York. On Aug. 6, 2012, the lawsuit says, Sterrett was contacted by the U-M Office of Conflict Resolution “regarding an undefined student complaint against him.”
Later that day, Sterrett had an interview with the Office of Conflict Resolution via Skype. Sterrett said in his suit he asked if he could consult legal counsel and postpone the interview. He alleges he was told that if he put off the interview, the investigation would continue without him.
“At no point during the call/interview was (Sterrett) given notice of the specific allegations which had been made against him,” the lawsuit says, adding he later gleaned that there was a complaint made against him by a female classmate with whom he had consensual sex in his dorm room five months earlier.
According to the lawsuit, the sex took place in the dorm room after a night of socializing, and the alleged victim spent the whole night in the room. The next day, the alleged victim sent Sterrett a text that read: “You can’t actually tell anyone,” according to the lawsuit
The suit also says Sterrett’s roommate was in the upper bunk the whole time.
The suit alleges that there is no written statement of the allegations against him and the alleged victim has never signed her name to any statement or complaint against Sterrett. The police never have been contacted about the sex and no criminal investigation has taken place.
However, others talked to witnesses.
“It is uncontested that (the alleged victim’s) mother did contact at least two potential witnesses,” according to the lawsuit.
The suit says there is no record of the alleged victim complaining to anyone about Sterrett, despite living on the same dorm floor with him for the rest of the school year.
However, the suit alleges, the university treated Sterrett as guilty from the get-go, including removing him from the special program and from the dorm the following year.
“The university’s policy and procedure required that plaintiff be presumed not to have engaged in wrongdoing,” the suit says. “This presumption was disregarded by (U-M). From the day of the complaint, (U-M) presumed that (Sterrett) had engaged in sexual misconduct and proceeded in accordance with that assumption.”
The suit alleges U-M took longer than the 60 days required by university policy to complete the investigation, and witness statements and interview notes “were intentionally withheld.”
On Nov. 30, 2012, U-M issued its final report finding Sterrett guilty of sexual misconduct. The report included a copy of Sterrett’s five-page objection to the draft but much of it was redacted as “not relevant,” the lawsuit says.
“(The investigator) also relied heavily on her findings of sexual misconduct on a completely irrelevant point – (Sterrett) said he ‘regretted’ having had sex with (the alleged victim). (The investigator) knowingly ignored the obvious – which was explained to her by (Sterrett) that he regretted having sex with a friend,” the suit says. “The report contains statements attributed to witnesses the witnesses subsequently denied in affidavits. The findings in the report draw all inferences in the light most favorable to (the alleged victim), are biased against (Sterrett) and are flat out wrong.”
The suit also alleges U-M ignored the testimony of the roommate who was in the top bunk and sent a Facebook message to Sterrett in the middle of the sex complaining about the noise. The roommate in a second interview following the final report that he never heard the alleged victim say no or ask for help. After that second interview, U-M’s investigator wrote the fact that the other person in the room didn’t hear any request to stop did not change anything.
On Jan. 13, 2013, the university gave Sterrett a ‘resolution agreement’ asking him to agree to be suspended from school until May 1, 2016. He declined.
On Feb. 1, 2013, the finding was upheld by a U-M top administrator suspending him until July 2016.
In May 2013, Sterrett appealed the findings and suspension to a university appeals board, which denied him, despite Sterrett submitting witness affidavits which contradicted the findings in the report.
“The appeals board was obviously biased and invested in supporting the findings of their university colleagues,” the suit says. “The decision of the appeals board was a rubber-stamp of the flawed investigation … lacked fundamental fairness, was reckless, arbitrary and capricious and clearly denied (Sterrett) due process.”
The lawsuit asks for damages and for Sterrett to be reinstated to the university.
Quotes:
Student Drew Sterrett was railroaded out of the University of Michigan on trumped-up rape allegations for which he was never criminally charged, according to a federal lawsuit.
Sterrett claims the school, which is under federal investigation for its handling of sexual assaults, denied his due process rights at nearly every step in the internal university discipline process. He was suspended from school and is eligible to be reinstated in 2016
Sterrett came to U-M in the fall of 2011, where he was admitted to the school of engineering and the Michigan Research Community, a small group of students who lived together in Mosher-Jordan Residence Hall and were paired with a faculty mentor.
After completing his freshmen year, Sterrett went home to New York. On Aug. 6, 2012, the lawsuit says, Sterrett was contacted by the U-M Office of Conflict Resolution “regarding an undefined student complaint against him.”
Later that day, Sterrett had an interview with the Office of Conflict Resolution via Skype. Sterrett said in his suit he asked if he could consult legal counsel and postpone the interview. He alleges he was told that if he put off the interview, the investigation would continue without him.
“At no point during the call/interview was (Sterrett) given notice of the specific allegations which had been made against him,” the lawsuit says, adding he later gleaned that there was a complaint made against him by a female classmate with whom he had consensual sex in his dorm room five months earlier.
According to the lawsuit, the sex took place in the dorm room after a night of socializing, and the alleged victim spent the whole night in the room. The next day, the alleged victim sent Sterrett a text that read: “You can’t actually tell anyone,” according to the lawsuit
The suit also says Sterrett’s roommate was in the upper bunk the whole time.
The suit alleges that there is no written statement of the allegations against him and the alleged victim has never signed her name to any statement or complaint against Sterrett. The police never have been contacted about the sex and no criminal investigation has taken place.
However, others talked to witnesses.
“It is uncontested that (the alleged victim’s) mother did contact at least two potential witnesses,” according to the lawsuit.
The suit says there is no record of the alleged victim complaining to anyone about Sterrett, despite living on the same dorm floor with him for the rest of the school year.
However, the suit alleges, the university treated Sterrett as guilty from the get-go, including removing him from the special program and from the dorm the following year.
“The university’s policy and procedure required that plaintiff be presumed not to have engaged in wrongdoing,” the suit says. “This presumption was disregarded by (U-M). From the day of the complaint, (U-M) presumed that (Sterrett) had engaged in sexual misconduct and proceeded in accordance with that assumption.”
The suit alleges U-M took longer than the 60 days required by university policy to complete the investigation, and witness statements and interview notes “were intentionally withheld.”
On Nov. 30, 2012, U-M issued its final report finding Sterrett guilty of sexual misconduct. The report included a copy of Sterrett’s five-page objection to the draft but much of it was redacted as “not relevant,” the lawsuit says.
“(The investigator) also relied heavily on her findings of sexual misconduct on a completely irrelevant point – (Sterrett) said he ‘regretted’ having had sex with (the alleged victim). (The investigator) knowingly ignored the obvious – which was explained to her by (Sterrett) that he regretted having sex with a friend,” the suit says. “The report contains statements attributed to witnesses the witnesses subsequently denied in affidavits. The findings in the report draw all inferences in the light most favorable to (the alleged victim), are biased against (Sterrett) and are flat out wrong.”
The suit also alleges U-M ignored the testimony of the roommate who was in the top bunk and sent a Facebook message to Sterrett in the middle of the sex complaining about the noise. The roommate in a second interview following the final report that he never heard the alleged victim say no or ask for help. After that second interview, U-M’s investigator wrote the fact that the other person in the room didn’t hear any request to stop did not change anything.
On Jan. 13, 2013, the university gave Sterrett a ‘resolution agreement’ asking him to agree to be suspended from school until May 1, 2016. He declined.
On Feb. 1, 2013, the finding was upheld by a U-M top administrator suspending him until July 2016.
In May 2013, Sterrett appealed the findings and suspension to a university appeals board, which denied him, despite Sterrett submitting witness affidavits which contradicted the findings in the report.
“The appeals board was obviously biased and invested in supporting the findings of their university colleagues,” the suit says. “The decision of the appeals board was a rubber-stamp of the flawed investigation … lacked fundamental fairness, was reckless, arbitrary and capricious and clearly denied (Sterrett) due process.”
The lawsuit asks for damages and for Sterrett to be reinstated to the university.
A man is only as faithful as his options-Chris Rock