PURDUE LAWSUIT UPDATE: Possible Victory for Accused Student in 7th Circuit
To date, in federal due process lawsuits, the only statistically significant factor in the outcome of a case is the gender of the judge. Accused students have been on the prevailing side just under 60 percent of the time in decisions from male judges; universities have been on the prevailing side more than 60 percent of the time in cases decided by female judges. Given that today’s Seventh Circuit Purdue argument featured an all-female panel, Purdue appeared to have an advantage. After oral argument however, it seems as if the case could go either way, with the likelier outcome being a victory for the accused student. The facts of the case were unusually troubling, even in the Title IX realm: the guilty finding led to a loss of the accused student’s ROTC scholarship and Navy career, after a process in which the accuser neither appeared at the hearing to speak and answer questions, but didn’t even submit a statement to the hearing. (The evidence in the case was a Title IX investigator’s report and a statement written on the accuser’s behalf by a university counselor.) The complaint alleged that the accused student had no chance to present exculpatory witnesses, including a roommate who said that the alleged assault never occurred. As Judge Barrett noted, “It was a credibility contest in which you not only did not hear directly from her, you didn’t even read words that she had written.” The Purdue approach, indeed, seemed designed to celebrate unfairness. The university’s lawyer, incredibly, argued that in conducting its TIX adjudication, “Purdue has no reason to do anything except look at the evidence that the [accuser] said was inculpating of [the accused].” Perhaps the most interesting exchange of the hearing came between Judge Barrett and the Purdue lawyer over what type of evidence is necessary to establish a plausible claim of gender bias.
academicwonderland.Includes Audio of Oral Arguments By KC Johnson
