An anonymous male student is suing the Trustees of Princeton University for breach of contract, violations of Title IX, and negligence. According to the lawsuit, “John Doe” began studying at Princeton University in 2022 and was suspended after the disciplinary proceedings that followed from two women filing separate charges of choking accusations. The lawsuit argues that the alleged choking incidents never occurred, and that the disciplinary proceedings were heavily biased against Doe. The lawsuit further notes that one of the two accusers has now settled a defamation suit against another student “whom she similarly falsely accused of threatening to choke her.” Doe is asking for the university to vacate the disciplinary measures, expunge them from all records, reinstate him at the school, and pay damages.
“Like the investigation, John’s hearing was also rife with bias and prejudgment,” reads the lawsuit, which was filed on June 20. “According to a source involved in the panel’s deliberative process, most of the panel members had decided John was guilty before the hearing even started, and one of them — Professor Elizabeth Harman — even gave an impassioned speech arguing not just that John was guilty, but that it would be a ‘moral failing’ to vote for anything other than expulsion, which the source believed intimidated the student members of the panel into finding him responsible.”
A photo appears in the lawsuit that shows a woman with her eyes closed and head resting against her hand. The caption is as follows: “As shown in a screenshot below, Professor Harman — who aggressively questioned John, but not Jane or Sarah — literally fell asleep while Sarah (the only complainant who appeared at the hearing) was testifying.”
“This is a screenshot of me awake, with my eyes open, looking down at the page as I take notes on the hearing,” Harman said in a statement provided to National Review.
A Princeton University spokesperson provided the following comment to National Review: “We believe this suit is without merit and will contest it vigorously. We are confident this situation was handled in accordance with University policy.”
The lawsuit — a lengthy document — contains many details, including a summary of a rather turbulent romantic relationship between Doe and one of his accusers. It proves difficult for a journalist to verify many of the claims in the lawsuit, given that most of the relevant individuals are anonymized and there are no publicly accessible records of the disciplinary proceedings.
However, the lawsuit includes some factual errors that undermine its legitimacy and credibility. (A fault of the lawyers, not the student.) For example, it states the following:
Moreover, former professor in the School of Public and International Affairs Joshua Katz has repeatedly criticized the COD for its bias against defendants and its apparent presumption of guilt. He told the Daily Princetonian, “I think they’re biased against defendants. . . . So I thought it was very important to provide assistance to students who found themselves attempting to defend themselves against discipline charges.”
The issue here is that the lawsuit confuses Stanley Katz with Joshua Katz, a former classics professor at Princeton. The quote in the excerpt above should be attributed to Stanley Katz.
In an effort to suggest the campus culture pressured the university to adopt policies that are more sympathetic to female complainants in Title IX cases, the lawsuit cites articles and protests which criticized the university for failing to assist the “survivors.” One article mentioned is a 2022 opinion piece in the student-run publication the Daily Princetonian, which the lawsuit characterizes as “criticizing Princeton for making it difficult for complainants to obtain No Contact Orders.” (That article mentioned both no-contact orders and no-communication orders, which are essentially the university’s version of restraining orders.)
It is worth noting, though, that the no-contact orders and no-communication orders have been criticized (largely by conservatives and free-speech activists) for being granted far too easily. There have been several documented cases of pro-Palestinian Princeton students issuing such orders against Jewish students. National Review previously reported that the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sent a letter to Princeton arguing that such orders violated the school’s expansive free-expression policies; the university promptly changed the guidelines for issuing no-contact and no-communication orders.
This article was updated with a quote from Harman.