NYU REFUSES To Share Evidence In Kangaroo-Court Suit. Tells Male To Seek Campus Gossip
When an accused student sought evidence to prove that his due process rights were violated and that anti-male bias played a role in the verdict, his university had a novel suggestion. Rather than handing over confidential data on disciplinary hearings, New York University told a federal judge that “common sense” dictates that the student can gather this data merely from campus gossip.
John Doe sued the elite private university in January, 11 months after his accuser filed a sexual assault claim against him for a sexual encounter that was itself 11 months prior. He alleged selective enforcement motivated by anti-male bias. NYU exonerated him in a second adjudication three days after he sued, a result that was upheld on internal appeal. John’s initial guilty finding was based on NYU’s conclusion that his accuser was “incapacitated” under campus policy. He said there was no evidence for incapacitation, meaning that the adjudicator, hearing and investigation itself were affected by anti-male bias. NYU sought to dismiss the lawsuit in August, following an amended complaint by John that added intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and New York’s version of a Title IX violation. He also sought damages for the first time.
The university claims that John’s complaint doesn’t meet the standard for selective enforcement set by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He fails to give evidence of female students being treated differently in a similar situation and makes “naked allegations” that are “too conclusory” to survive a motion to dismiss. That’s all the more reason for NYU to turn over data on disciplinary investigations, John responded, so that he can establish whether females were treated more favorably. Legal discovery is crucial to his case and supersedes the university’s privacy policy, he argues.
NYU data unnecessary because ‘word spreads quickly around campus’
NYU’s motion to dismiss in August claimed that John’s accusations hinged on the second hearing being “rigged against him.” Since the student ultimately prevailed, he had no damages to recover and his arguments were merely conclusory. If John also prevailed in court, to NYU’s knowledge, he would be the “first student cleared of any sexual misconduct in a university disciplinary proceeding to successfully bring a Title IX claim.” That would be “unwarranted.”…“Faced with a clear-cut case of selective enforcement against Doe,” John responded Sept. 13, NYU resorts to a “no harm, no foul” approach. He reiterated that Doe v. Columbia entitles him to a “minimal plausible inference of discriminatory intent” at this stage of the legal process, and that the 2nd Circuit had reaffirmed this holding in August.
thecollegefix-Ethan Berman
