Based upon the totality of the circumstances, it was the individual and collective impression of everyone in the house that evening – including those who had absolutely no alcohol to drink (Baity, [two other witnesses]) – that M.K. knew what she was doing at all times. She was in total command and control of her actions. In other words, she had the capacity to, and indeed did, voluntarily consent to all of the activity that occurred that evening.
There were three African-American males – Q.J., Z.W., and R.J. – who had personal knowledge and information regarding the events in question. Inexplicably, the University Defendants only interviewed Q.J. Upon information and belief, during Q.J.’s interview, he unequivocally stated that any sexual activity between Plaintiffs and M.K. was voluntary and consensual for all who participated. Z.W. and R.J. were not interviewed prior to Plaintiffs’ expulsion from the University, even though the University Defendants were aware of their names and that they had relevant knowledge. Upon information and belief, the University simply believed that, following Q.J.’s statement, and because of their race, ethnicities, and/or gender, the statements of Z.W. and R.J. would be biased in favor of Plaintiffs and contain no useful information. Not only was the refusal to interview Z.W. and R.J. racial discrimination against Plaintiffs during the sham-interview process, but it demonstrates intentional racial discrimination against Z.W. and R.J. This provides further evidence of the racial biases employed by the University Defendants during their sham investigation.
In summary, all witnesses, including Plaintiffs, told the University that M.K. consented to the sexual activity. All witnesses told the University that M.K. had the capacity to consent to the sexual activity. Indeed, all witnesses told the University that, had he or she witnessed any form of abuse, he or she would have intervened to assist M.K. Because of past experiences, one of these female witnesses has a high vigilance for domestic violence situations and would not have hesitated to intervene.
All in all, the University Defendants’ total “investigation” lasted approximately 24 hours.
The University of Findlay is being sued by two former students who were dismissed for violations of University Policies following an investigation and appeal process. The University conducted this process with integrity and fairness. We will vigorously defend the process and our decision.
We welcome readers to submit letters regarding articles and content in Cleveland Scene. Letters should be a minimum of 150 words, refer to content that has appeared on Cleveland Scene, and must include the writer's full name, address, and phone number for verification purposes. No attachments will be considered. Writers of letters selected for publication will be notified via email. Letters may be edited and shortened for space.
Email us at [email protected].
Support Local Journalism.
Join the Cleveland Scene Press Club
Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.
Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.