The University of Michigan operates a “bifurcated system to address student misconduct.” Accused students have the right to a “live hearing” and cross-examination for nonsexual offenses, but not for sexual offenses. This is a problem for a federal judge in Michigan. Even though John Doe has not yet been found responsible by UMich, his lawsuit against the university meets “ripeness requirements” for the court’s consideration. U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow wrote in a Friday order granting Doe “preliminary relief.”  The judge cited 6th Circuit precedent that requires universities to ensure a minimum level of due process in Title IX investigations, including “the opportunity [for an accused student] to share his version of the events at some kind of hearing.” In Doe’s case, that means the accused student deserves a live hearing in which he may submit questions to his accuser through an official or the Student Resolution Panel. Tarnow said the single-investigator model used by UMich does not allow Doe to know “which questions are actually being asked of [his accuser] or her response to those questions.”  Without a live proceeding, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of Plaintiff’s interest in his reputation, education, and employment is significant. Additional procedural safeguards would both assist the truth-seeking process and help to ensure the protection of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights…Doe’s lawyer told The College Fix she was “not aware” of any previous ruling that nullified a “single investigator” model for Title IX cases, as did Tarnow’s order for Doe’s specific case, or how many other cases the order could affect.

thecollegefix.com By Grace Curtis

 

Share this:

From the court hearing transcript John Doe’s attorney James Ehrhard argues:  ‘What makes my case very unique is that I actually asked for the training materials and was explicitly denied, and I think I know why…TitleIX coordinator Claire Hall was on the trauma – was a faculty member for the Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigation and Adjudication Institute. Trauma-informed training is specifically sexual assault training which presumes that the complainant is not lying and that females are open to assault by males. And the Wall Street Journal itself just did an editorial about trauma-induced training is inherently biased against males. We believe if the motion to dismiss is denied and we move to a very limited discovery stage, we’re going to get those materials and those materials are going to track exactly what we’ve seen nationwide, that the training materials are inherently biased to a belief that males are sexual offenders. And if that’s, indeed, the case, then that shows the panelists were biased against Mr. Doe because of his gender.’

Judge McConnell Jr.: ‘The Court’s going to deny the motion to dismiss as to the Title IX claim. Mr. Doe, has alleged, amongst other things, issues involving gender through the training process. While that is a thin allegation, the fact that Mr. Doe asked for training material during the appeals process and it wasn’t obtained or given to him qualifies to me for why the Court’s willing to accept less than it would otherwise expect at the pleading stage of this. In addition, as I said earlier, I believe you can add to that the inference that, as pled, this Court can find no reason at all as to why Mr. Doe was treated — the result was Mr. Doe’s expulsion. The only inference that one could draw from that considering all the facts is that gender played a role. And when you combine those two with the fact that all of the information is in the Defendant’s hands, it all counsels against dismissing the Title IX claim at this stage.’

Doe v. JW University Transcript The judge let 7 of 9 go forward.

 

Share this: