Here ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;06&#x2F;this-university-cleared-a-male-student-o" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;06&#x2F;this-university-cleared-a...</a> ) is Reason on a case where alcohol might have been involved. Who can say?<p>&gt; Doe and his accuser, &quot;Jane Roe,&quot; met during an impromptu gathering at a mutual friend&#x27;s dorm on August 22, 2014. They first had sex that very night. They exchanged friendly text messages the next day, which were later provided as evidence in Doe&#x27;s favor at his hearing, according to the judge&#x27;s decision. They eventually had sex a second time.<p>&gt; They had sex two more times after that—Roe was the initiator both times, according to the mutually agreed upon facts of the case.<p>&gt; But on November 6, 2014, the university informed Doe that someone had accused him of sexual misconduct. He did not immediately learn that his accuser was Roe, though he was barred from having any further contact with her. The university also moved him to another dorm against his will.<p>&gt; Roe&#x27;s residential advisor and Title IX coordinator had submitted reports agreeing with her contention that their very first sexual encounter wasn&#x27;t consensual. This logic seems to rest on the disputed fact that Roe was drunk at the time.<p>&gt; At the actual hearing—which was attended by both Doe and Roe—Roe&#x27;s roommate testified that she did not believe &quot;Roe was drunk or otherwise incapacitated when she saw her shortly after her sexual encounter.&quot;<p>&gt; A three-person panel sided with Doe and cleared him of sexual misconduct. But Roe appealed.<p>&gt; At this point, the proceedings veered into Franz Kafka territory. Doe was barely able to review the new evidence against him, and was not allowed to even appear at the second hearing. The new evidence undermined Roe’s roommate’s testimony, but at no point was the roommate called upon to defend her original statements about Roe’s lack of incapacitation. JMU went to great lengths to accommodate Roe—even granting her several extensions on submitting new evidence—while making it all but impossible for Doe to defend himself. As a result, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and suspended from the university for five and a half years.<p>&gt; Given that this case appears to rest on whether or not Roe was drunk during the encounter, the accusation seems extremely dubious. Even if Roe had been drinking, mere intoxication does not render a person incapable of consenting to sex. It certainly looks like the university conflated intoxication with incapacitation, and that Roe ultimately failed to prove either state.