A disturbing lawsuit was filed on February 27^th in Los Angeles Superior Court by Yan Xu and Huiping Dai, parents of Occidental College student Davis Xu who fatally overdosed on prescription medication after being found responsible for stalking by a Title IX investigation. The suit alleges wrongful death and Title IX claims. It has been added to our Title IX Lawsuits Database.

This excerpt from the Complaint summarizes the gist of the suit:

Approximately two months before Mr. XU’s passing away, Defendant STEPHANIE A. MALTER, a fellow classmate, accused Mr. XU of sexual harassment and stalking based upon their exchange of innocuous Facebook messages over the course of a day. The wrongful investigation and results of that investigation, and Defendants, and each of them, and their conduct, exacerbated XU’s known clinical depression and resulted in his accidental or intentional intake of multiple prescription drugs resulting in his death. Shortly after receiving notice on January 11, 2017 that he was found guilty of “stalking” after the investigation Defendant OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE ordered, Mr. XU suffering from such severe depression, was found dead in his dormitory room at OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE on the afternoon of February 27, 2017.

The defendants are as follows:

• Occidental College and its Title IX Coordinator Ruth Jones
• Stephanie Malter, Xu’s accuser
• Shaunti Yanik, a third-party investigator, as well as his company Public Interest Investigations, Inc.

The Background

Stephanie Malter and Davis Xu shared a sociology class in which they were assigned to provide an example of breaking social norms. The two corresponded on Facebook about their assignment, as well as their professional aspirations and personal lives. Malter told Xu “I want to specialize in crimes against women,” making it likely that she is a feminist ideologue with heightened sensitivities regarding gender.

The conversation eventually turned to Xu telling Malter that he was “kinda was thinking of asking [her] out.” Malter politely declined and Xu did not press the notion further. On the contrary, Xu apologized for the “bad timing” and stated that he felt “so dumb” about even floating the idea. Malter’s response was to say three times that he did not cause her offense (“you’re fine,” “you’re good,” “you’re totally fine”).

Xu attempted to spark Malter’s interest by linking a Buzzfeed article describing his lawsuit against Brown University. Brown had removed him from school and issued a no-contact order against him due to his mental health history and frustrating conversations with administrators.

This apparently had the opposite effect on Malter, who did not reply to his message. Later that day, Malter requested that Xu not speak to him again. Although he was disappointed and frustrated, it appears that Xu honored this request.

After hearing a rumor that Xu had made a comment about her to another student, Malter filed a complaint with Occidental’s Title IX office five days later, alleging she had been sexually harassed and stalked by Xu. Examples of the alleged misconduct were the pair’s Facebook messages, which became an intense focus of Occidental’s investigation.

All we know about Xu’s message to another student regarding Malter was that although Xu did not mention her by name, and, he described her as a “bitch” and a “certain red-headed asshole.”

Xu filed a counter-complaint, alleging that Malter filed a bad faith complaint against him, but it was quickly dismissed by Title IX Coordinator Ruth Jones who believed Malter’s complaint was made in good faith.

Shaunti Yanik, the third-party investigator hired by Occidental, interviewed Xu and concluded that although he had not committed sexual harassment his messages to other students about Malter as well as the Buzzfeed article he linked caused Malter to “fear for her safety.”

Xu was put on probation for one year, and his academic record was tainted. Xu’s later communication to administrators revealed his distress that his academic trajectory would be permanently impaired, which exacerbated his pre-existing mental health issues. Xu appealed but committed suicide before the process concluded.

Several questions come to mind after reading the totality of the complaint:

• How could Jones have possessed sufficient evidence to conclude at the start of an investigation, before any hearing took place, that Malter’s complaint was made in good faith? In doing so, she would have had to rule out the possibility that new and critical evidence could be introduced in interviews, investigations, or hearings that could cast Malter’s claims in a different light.
• What was the entirety of the comment Xu allegedly made to another student, which Malter claims to have overheard? Or have we heard all the relevant details of Xu’s comment?
• Why did investigator Yanik conclude that Malter feared for her safety in the same report in which she concluded that “Malter’s emotional distress was ‘not substantiated’”?
• On page 8, the Complaint states that Xu told investigator Yanik he “had not attempted to contact Malter in any way since their last messages on September 26, 2016.” The exhibits, however, only refer to messages timestamped until September 25^th, 2016. Were there other messages (possibly via email or some other medium) between Xu and Malter after the Facebook conversation on September 25^th, or is the mention of September 26^th a typo? The complaint does not describe any potential communication between the two after September 25^th.

This is not the first time a student accused of Title IX offenses has committed suicide. Thomas Klocke, a University of Texas – Arlington student, committed suicide after being found responsible of misconduct. UTA was later sued.

Many feminists and sex-assault victim advocates routinely argue that believing accusers and encouraging them to report is more important than due process or concern for accused students generally. Given that their ideology was instituted with the 2011 Dear-Colleague letter and is shared by many student affairs administrators, isn’t the suicide of accused students with pre-existing mental health issues inevitable? Do these advocates recognize that their policies have this impact? If so, do they weigh it as an acceptable consequence? Or is it just another casualty in the “more important war” on male misconduct?