In April of 2018, Student Life received an anonymous op-ed that discussed the university’s failure to protect the student population from a “serial offender”. The author described her frustrations with the University—she had reported the assault, and yet the University had deemed him as “not a threat” and he remained on campus where he continued to assault other students. The author’s bravery did not go unnoticed; many other survivors felt inspired and began to share their own stories, including another survivor who had been assaulted by the very same student, a survivor that could have been spared such pain had the University taken action sooner. This sentiment, this call for action, led to growing student outrage. The student group Title Mine was formed and they held a rally to call for change and released a list of demands for the University to improve the Title IX process. The student activism and the spirit with which these problems were stressed was, without a doubt, moving. And yet, there is one person who was decidedly against the Title Mine movement as a whole—the offender from the initial op-ed.

The offending student filed a lawsuit against the University. He refused all personal responsibility and made outlandish claims, including that the University had engaged in a “conspiracy to deprive him and other men of their civil rights in order to gain a competitive advantage among potential female students.” He believed that the op-eds written by the brave survivors had created a hostile environment that resulted in an “inflammatory call for action.” He even went so far as to say that the University had “permitted female students to interfere with [his] rights when it permitted his accusers to protest on campus.…” He believed that all of this was done with the intent of depriving him of a fair trial. Luckily, the judge ruled against the sexual offender. A second semester senior at the time of his expulsion, the offender was not awarded a degree nor given his official transcripts to be able to graduate from another college. The Student Life Editorial Board was elated to hear of the repercussions the former student has faced for his crimes, even if he did not face the criminal justice system. Thanks to the efforts of Title Mine and the bravery of the survivors who shared their stories, this case was justly ruled.

Although the case has achieved some justice for the survivors, Title Mine’s fight is not over. The University has made efforts to improve the Title IX process, and we commend this, but the process still needs work and it is important to remain vigilant and speak up when injustice is evident.

Even in the case mentioned above, the fight may not be over; the judge’s ruling had made it so that the offending former student’s claims of “negligence” and “breach of contract” could be refiled in state court. His lawyer indicated that he was, in fact, considering an appeal.

Vigilance is also important on a larger scale, outside of the immediate campus community. Lobbyist Richard McIntosh proposed changes to Title IX that would give more rights to the accused after his own son was expelled from Washington University. His proposal was first introduced in 2018, failed, and was reintroduced in 2019. The proposal would take away the accuser’s right to anonymity, allow for the accused to sue the accuser if the claim was found to be false and allow for cross-examination of the accuser. If McIntosh’s amendment had passed, it would have allowed his son to appeal his Title IX case to Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Commission, of which the former student’s own mother is the presiding and managing commissioner. The amendment even had an emergency clause that would allow for this appeal to happen immediately, showing how directly these actions would have benefitted McIntosh’s family interests. Richard McIntosh has even sent around emails attempting to persuade lawmakers to pass the amendment—emails that spoke on men’s rights, saying a “couple of shots at the rape equals regret wouldn’t hurt” and linking to an article that argues that “women, more than men, regret casual sex, and it is these unsatisfying sexual unions caused by regret—not rape—that is the real sex problem on campus.” McIntosh’s proposed legislation is unjust. Thankfully, the University spoke out against the proposed amendments and they have not been passed successfully.

However, similar versions of the bill will not stop circulating anytime soon. Staying informed not just on a campus, but on a state and national level, is crucial in order to fight against such dangerous legislation. In order to speak against injustice, one must have their eyes open at all times. Support Title Mine, support survivors, support justice.