Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    USC Student Cleared Of Rape Charges, Could Still Be Expelled

    USC Student Cleared Of Rape Charges, Could Still Be Expelled

    . . . thanks to academia’s current radical interpretation of Title IX

    The war on male college students under the mantle of Title IX continues.  A USC student was accused of raping a fellow student in her dorm room, and after being cleared by security video, could still be expelled.

    CBS News reports:

    Security video from outside a local nightclub has cleared a USC student of rape, CBS Los Angeles reports.

    Armaan Premjee was accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old student in her dorm room but video from the Banditos club near campus tells a different story.

    “I’m very grateful for these tapes,” Premjee said. “She put her arms around my neck, she started kissing me.”

    Premjee says the woman wanted to leave the club and have sex with him.

    The security video shows the woman leading Premjee out of the club and shows her making a sexual gesture to her friend behind Premjee’s back.

    She’s then caught on video signing them into her dorm.

    Prosecutors charged Premjee with rape, claiming the woman was too drunk to give consent. The woman told detectives she didn’t remember anything from that night. Premjee says she was the aggressor.

    “She knew what she was doing. She was able to stand on her own two feet. She led the way,” he said.

    After seeing the video, the judge dismissed the case saying, “I believe there was consent. There is a very strong indication that the alleged victim in this case was the initiator.”

    Watch the security video footage:

    Back in May, when the still-unnamed “victim” filed her rape report, prosecutors sought $1 million in bail.  Had he been convicted—i.e. had there not been security video—Premjee faced up to ten years in prison.

    The Los Angeles Times reported at the time:

    USC student has been charged in the rape of a fellow student “by use of drugs,” according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

    In addition to the charge of rape by use of drugs, Armann Karim Premjee, 20, faces a count of sexual penetration by a foreign object, the district attorney’s office said in a statement. Los Angeles police have spelled Premjee’s first name as Aarman, but a USC student directory spells it Armaan.

    Premjee pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Tuesday. The judge declined prosecutors’ request for $1-million bail, and Premjee was released from custody on $100,000 bond.

    Prosecutors allege that Premjee sexually assaulted the 19-year-old student in her dorm room just after 1 a.m. on April 1.

    “The victim’s roommate walked in when the alleged crime occurred,” the district attorney’s office said. “Premjee went into a bathroom and when he returned, the roommate confronted him and he left.”

    . . . . If Premjee is convicted as charged, he faces up to 10 years in state prison.

    He may not be facing a prison sentence, but he may still be expelled by the university.  This is where the ridiculous reading and application of Title IX by American universities, heightened to hysterical levels under Obama, comes into play.

    Breitbart reports:

    Last week, after reviewing evidence from security footage, a California judge dropped charges against University of Southern California (USC) student Armaan Premjee, 20, after finding that his female accuser was the party that initiated the sexual encounter.

    However, under USC’s Title IX, Premjee could still face campus discipline because the woman he slept with was inebriated and did not give formal verbal consent.

    USC’s rules state, “Consent must be affirmative. ‘Affirmative consent’ means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is positive cooperation in act and attitude made with knowledge and agreement to the nature of the act.” It adds, “It is the responsibility of each person involved to ensure they have the affirmative consent of the other(s) to engage in sexual activity. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.”

    . . . . “My life will be ruined if I get kicked out of school,” Premjee said during an interview with Inside Edition last week.

    Title IX, no longer the shield it was intended to be but a weapon, is being used not to protect students but to persecute them.

    The Wall Street Journal addressed this problem in 2015.

    Since its passage 43 years ago, Title IX has proved to be a remarkably elastic law. It has been stretched and warped from its original intent to end discrimination on the basis of sex in schools that receive federal funding. As long as Title IX’s victims were wrestlers or swimmers from low-revenue men’s sports that were jettisoned to achieve participation-parity with women’s sports, nobody much cared.

    . . . . A tipping point was reached earlier this year when a Northwestern University film professor and feminist, Laura Kipnis, dared to criticize new Title IX regulations governing campus sex. The regulations, promulgated in the name of preventing a “hostile environment” for women, broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” An unwelcome touch or comment was grounds for a Title IX investigation, with college administers forced to be police, judge and jury in allegations of sexual harassment from offensive speech to rape.

    . . . . The movement of Title IX into areas as remote as the mere discussion of sexual politics on campus has followed the same trajectory. Beginning in 2011 the Obama Education Department wrote “Dear Colleague” letters to schools. Suddenly, schools were responsible for harassment and assault that occur off campus. A lower standard of evidence was established to prove the guilt of the accused. Earlier protections for academic freedom and free expression were dropped.

    With that, the pas de deux with activist groups commenced. Title IX investigations of accusations of sexual assault and harassment on campuses exploded. Just as they had with Title IX in sports, activists went in search of victims to be the media face of a rape crisis—and to become plaintiffs in litigation against schools.

    The notorious and now-debunked story of the University of Virginia’s “Jackie” gang-rape is a case in point. Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely was, in her words, searching for a victim who would show “what it’s like to be on campus now . . . not only where rape is so prevalent but also that there is this pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture.”

    The new demands to combat what federal education officials also call a “rape culture” on campus are so excessive that even current and former Harvard Law professors have publicly complained that their school’s attempt to comply has undermined due process and is “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.”

    This is yet another area in which President Trump’s intervention would be greatly appreciated.  While the seeming majority of colleges and universities are flush with SJWs happy to bring down the hammer of Title IX on its students, less ideologically-minded colleges and universities are so fearful of losing federal funds to Title IX violations that they create policies and engage in actions that are oppressive, reactionary, malignant, and ludicrous.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    mluepnitz | August 8, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    So if Aarman is kicked out of school, but the female isn’t couldn’t Aarman sue for discrimination based on sex? She didn’t receive “affirmative consent” either. And she initiated the whole encounter. How is that not affirmative consent?

      Milhouse in reply to mluepnitz. | August 8, 2017 at 5:49 pm

      She certainly did get affirmative consent, even if she doesn’t remember it. He was sober, after all.

        mluepnitz in reply to Milhouse. | August 8, 2017 at 5:55 pm

        Are you sure he was sober? From the NYT article “In the early hours of April 1, neither student at the University of Southern California knew what the other had had to drink. An Uber was called, and the male student was seen on video following the female student into her dorm, where they had sex.

          Milhouse in reply to mluepnitz. | August 8, 2017 at 6:17 pm

          He was at least sober enough to remember what happened.

          But I don’t understand where they’re getting the requirement for consent to be verbal. Or the idea that she didn’t consent verbally. All it says is “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary”, and her consent certainly seems to have been all three, even if there’s no recording of her actual words.

            We have a society being run by women, why are we so shocked the outcome is a confusing set of “Have your cake and eat it too.”?

            On one hand, we have women SCREAMING they have the right to be sexual aggressive, it is “liberating”. On the other hand, if they don’t like the outcome of their actions, they can fall back on the “I am just a woman, protect me!” position.

            Back and forth, back and forth. Endlessly.

            I still point out that if you look at the photo of NASA personnel during the time of the moon landings, done with less computing power than your typical cellphone holds, you will see a group of organized, crew cut, white shirt wearing MEN and not many women at all. Why? Because if women were in charge, we’d still not be on the moon and they would still be arguing about the design and color scheme of the Apollo capsule’s interior!

            Women are different. Women compensate for the differences by creating issues where issues did not used to be. Fifty years ago girls were encouraged to be good and careful about the relationships they had. Now they are encouraged to be aggressive and wild, following their immediate gratification urges. The outcome, often bad, is inevitable. Either they own up to THEIR actions or change their behavior. Being a optional victim, depending on the outcome, is not the way to go.

            Feminism, like liberalism, is a debilitating disease.

          Arminius in reply to mluepnitz. | August 8, 2017 at 6:49 pm

          If I were a woman I’d be offended by the fact that the law deems men to be responsible adults at all times no matter how much they have to drink but after one drink women become children unable to give informed consent.

    Ragspierre | August 8, 2017 at 6:25 pm

    Young men, act like gentlemen.

    If you encounter drunk chicks…STAY AWAY. They are dangerous. They are generally stupid and bad. Yes, I understand that one of the attractions of chasing wild wimmins is that they let you catch them.

    It almost never ends well… Girls in bars who lead you out into the night are not your best choice of diversions.

    Arminius | August 8, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Word to the wise.

    Don’t stick your **** in crazy.

    Rags is right. Not to say there’s anything wrong with having a drink with a woman. If you know her. But drunken hook-ups are like playing Russian roulette.

    Oh, and one thing I learned in the post Tailhook Navy. It’s the “cool ones” you have to watch out for. The obviously crazy ones are, well, obviously bad news.

    Subotai Bahadur | August 8, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Male students in college should only get involved with non-student females. Yeah, they can indulge in the modern American female recreation of false rape accusations too. But with the non-student female, the rape charge will be dealt with by the legal system and there is a chance of due process. Never happen in a school based system. Further, a non-student is not going to have every aspect of the school pushing her to consider any sexual contact as rape and that consent is revocable.

    Granny | August 8, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    This is ridiculous. If he has been cleared by a court of law, then he is INNOCENT. Expelling him would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

      Albigensian in reply to Granny. | August 9, 2017 at 10:31 am

      For what it’s worth, courts can never find criminal defendants “innocent”; the best they can do is “not guilty.” And given the high standard of proof required for a criminal conviction, the public must accept that some who are guilty will inevitably be found “not guilty.” At least that’s how the criminal justice system works when it works as intended.

      Further, colleges can and do proscribe behaviors that are not unlawful; for example, academic dishonesty (cheating on a test, plagiarism, etc.) can get you expelled even if there’s no violation of criminal or civil law.

      And, yes, in a perfectly just world his accuser would at least be suspended for making what are almost certainly false accusations, and the school would do what it could to support the accused. And while they’re at it, and having recognized that human sex and courtship have never at any time and place been anywhere near as tidy as their asinine rules presume, they’d permanently jettison these rules. And perhaps for good measure serve up a big helping of ridicule for those who drafted and promoted them.

      Of course, that’s not going to happen. But we could at least expect the DoE to re-instate a higher standard of proof in these college tribunals, and to demand schools ensure substantive due process.

      Although if “hostile environment” is to remain precedent then DoE might consider whether the strongly ideological nature of the Title IX apparat, combined with the bad advice contained in that infamous “Dear Colleague” letter has, in fact, lead to a truly hostile environmen for straight males on many campuses and, if so, take steps under Title IX to remedy this.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend