UCONN and John Doe. When Fairness Is A “Compromise”
How nice of UConn to “compromise” by giving the male student a chance to defend himself. To call it a “compromise” is somewhat inaccurate. UConn settled a case by agreeing to do what it failed to do and should have done in the first place. That it only agreed to do so after District Judge Michael Shea granted the student a TRO and made it overwhelmingly clear that UConn was not going to be offered any cookies by the court for its handling of the affair. In other words, UConn only got reasonable after it was left with no other choice. And so UConn settled by agreeing to give the male student a “chance” to defend. Quite the compromise.
Without question, this is a big win for the male student. Without a doubt, this is a huge loss for UConn. Certainly, it’s a condemnation of a process that denied an accused the “chance” to defend himself. Clearly, it’s outrageous that it would take a federal lawsuit to convince UConn to “compromise” by allowing the student to have that “chance.”
And yet, will this change enough to make this “chance” meaningful, whether for the male student at issue or any other accused? Will the student be allowed to be represented by counsel, competent to amass evidence in his defense, to examine witnesses against him, to argue how that evidence should be considered?
What all of this has accomplished, at great pain and expense, is nothing more than the mere opportunity to participate in a process giving only the most superficial appearance of a “chance’ to defend himself. If the decision-makers are determined to hold the male student responsible, he can go through all the motions, present a brilliant defense, prove his innocence even, and still lose. If that’s the outcome they want to achieve, that’s the outcome they will achieve.
simplejustice.us-Greenfield
