Thus, Smith upheld the student's allegation that he was discriminated against because of his male gender, which led Brown to reach an erroneous outcome in suspending him for two-and-a-half years.It would be nice to get past these Salem witch trials.
The accused student's lawsuit also argued a breach of contract with Brown over the school's treatment of him once he was accused. The student argued 11 counts of a breach of contract, and Judge Smith upheld seven while granting Brown's motion to dismiss the other four.
On one count, Smith found that Brown violated its own code of conduct when it treated the accused student as guilty from the start and banned him from school resources, even though the code allows all students access to its facilities. Brown also erred, according to Smith, when it allowed an administrator not specifically named in the code of conduct as having the authority to remove a student from campus to ban the accused student from the campus...
"Most important however, is that Judge Smith offers groundbreaking analysis in stating: 'Requiring that a male student conclusively demonstrate, at the pleading stage, with evidence and/or data analysis that female students accused of sexual assault were treated differently is both practically impossible and inconsistent with the standard used in other discrimination contexts,'" Miltenberg (the student's attorney) added. "We expect this decision to have a significant impact on the manner in which courts view Title IX cases."
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Due Process Strikes Back
Let's hope this rationality and stroke of simple reason continue: