Remember the Rolling Stone article that brought national attention to a campus rape victim’s story only to retract it later when it was discovered to have been completely made up? Well, that, and other fake rape accusations, has had a huge impact on the rulings in court cases regarding campus sexual assaults.

Understandably, rape is a sensitive subject and because of that, in the court of public opinion, anyone making that accusation is generally believed without evidence. Such was the case with the Rolling Stone story.

And since then, several other stories have come to light, where female students have accused their male peers of sexual assault and because of the pressure to believe or fear of public embarrassment, the accused men stand guilty until proven innocent before university officials.

But a recent court ruling has corrected this dangerous course and given men a better footing for when they’ve been falsely accused. Washington Post has the story:

Can a male student held responsible by a university for an alleged sexual assault successfully make the case that his fate was the result of sex discrimination against him?

Many have tried and many have failed. Indeed, some have been all but laughed out of court.

But now the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has opened the door to just such a scenario. Reversing a U.S. District Court decision, the panel ruled Friday that a former athlete’s suit against Columbia University, which suspended him for a year for “sexual assault: nonconsensual sexual intercourse,” may go forward based on his claim that university officials acted with anti-male bias, in violation of Title IX, the federal education law that bars discrimination by schools receiving federal funds.

As the report explains, this isn’t so much about the men painting themselves as victims of gender bias, as it is ensuring they are treated equally under the law.

The appeals court stated that college administrators went out of their way to believe the rape allegations, with or without solid evidence, so as not to appear insensitive to the woman making the claims. But by doing so, the man’s defense is compromised:

“The University’s decision-makers … seeking to protect the University from criticism both among students and the public to the effect that it was not taking women’s sexual assault complaints seriously, took a pro-female, sex-biased stance on Jane Doe’s allegations, leading them to decide against him, incorrectly and contrary to the weight of evidence.”

There’s no two ways about it. That’s what you call gender discrimination and that’s not good for the accused, nor the accuser. In our free society, we must all be able to stand in a court of law as innocent until proven guilty, no matter how emotional the case may be. If there is to be equality, then everyone must be equal. Equality isn’t just for women and sex discrimination can go both ways.

H/T Instapundit

About The Author

Mark Meckler

Mark was a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, and served as the national coordinator. He left the organization to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. Mark appears regularly on television in outlets as diverse as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He’s highly sought after for the tea party perspective from print and electronic media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Examiner, Politico and the The Hill. Mark blogs at, and his opinion editorials regularly run in many of the leading political newspapers both on and offline. Mark has a BA in English from San Diego State University and graduated with honors from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1988. He practiced real estate and business law for almost a decade. For the last eleven years of his legal career he specialized in Internet advertising law. When not fighting for the future of our nation, Mark is an avid horseman, and lives in rural northern California with his wife Patty and two children.