Attorney Brett Sokolow is the founder, president, and CEO of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM, which is said “in-kerm”) and the Executive Director of the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA). Throughout much of his career he has been involved in helping and pressuring colleges to adopt rigorous sexual misconduct policies, which has placed him hand-in-hand with the due-process-be-damned brigade in higher education. He has also occasionally sneered at the Men’s Human Rights Movement for championing the cause of the wrongly accused.

His advocacy culminated in the disastrous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from the Department of Education, which formalized the evisceration of due process rights on college campuses.

In recent times, however, it seems that he may be having a slight change of heart. Two years ago, on this same month, he claimed that “a lot of colleges now are expelling and suspending people they shouldn’t, for fear they’ll get nailed on Title IX.” And now, in a recent ATIXA “Tip of the Week,” he made some bold statements that are sure to rattle the nerves of many a campus “social justice” warrior. He says:

Okay, so I’m all fired up again. In the last two weeks, I’ve worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong.

Hear that, Feminists? Hear that, college administrators? Drunk sex is not in and of itself rape. Notice that Sokolow is not just saying that false accusations happen, but also that wrongful convictions happen – and more than many would like to admit. He continues:

So, let me come at this from another angle. Finding each of the accused in violation of sexual misconduct is sex discrimination. We are making Title IX plaintiffs out of them.

Yes. Thank you, Brett Sokolow. As I have been saying for a long time, wrongful accusations of sexual misconduct are indeed an educational equity (Title IX) issue, especially when they are accompanied by wrongful suspensions and expulsions by administrators.

My friends, these are challenging cases, no doubt. But, we have to get them right. We’ve written about this at length and talked about it forever, but some boards and panels still can’t tell the difference between drunk sex and a policy violation. Perhaps the problem stems from weak policy, insufficient training or the futility of the panel model. Regardless, we need to fix it.

It probably stems from the fact that there is no precedent of the Department of Education investigating schools for failing to provide due process to the wrongly accused. It probably also has something to do with the pervasive culture of gynocentrism, sexism, and misandry that we find throughout higher education, especially as these phenomena intersect with issues of sex and consent.

The customs and practices of the field of higher education have adopted, as a common policy formulation, that sexual actions with a person the respondent knows to be incapacitated, or should know to be incapacitated by alcohol, drugs, sleep, etc., is prohibited.

Note the word in bold: incapacitated. That is the damning criterion required for finding a student guilty (“in violation,” as administrators say) for sexual assault involving drugs or alcohol. Not “under the influence.” Not “intoxicated.” Not “insert fuzzy word here so we can expand the definition of rape beyond all reason and railroad as many young men as possible.” No, none of these words will do. The correct word is incapacitation.

Are you listening, Leah Baker? Take Sokolow’s notes to your next sex education class and stop teaching students to falsely accuse men of rape.

But, in a recent case, the campus policy stated that intoxication creates an inability to consent. Thus, in any situation in which a male student and a female student have sex, and both are intoxicated, this college will commit an act of gender discrimination by only charging one of them.

If both are intoxicated, they both did the same thing to each other. Why should only the male be charged if both students behave in ways defined as prohibited by the policy? I’m not suggesting we charge both. Surely, every drunken sexual hook-up is not a punishable offense, especially if the parties know what they did and liked it.

Indeed, why should only the male be charged when both sexual partners did the exact same thing? What reason, other than sex discrimination?