Just in: In first-of-its-kind ruling in TIX cases, judge issues TRO ordering @umich to provide acc'd student (facing an ongoing inv'n) with a hearing--as well as circumscribed x-examination of accuser--to replace university's "single investigator" model. 
Judge makes clear--following the dictates of CA6 Cincinnati ruling--that providing a hearing & allowing at least some form of cross-examination benefits not only acc'd student but also the *university's* "truth-seeking" efforts.
Judge notes oddity of @UMich procedures--which grant robust protections to students acc'd of all other, often much less serious, offenses, while denying them to students facing the most serious campus charge:
Full ruling in @umich case (which requires fair process for acc'd student, but doesn't apply to other acc'd students at this stage) from Judge Arthur Tarnow is here:
kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/michig…
cc: @TBaldas
kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/michig…
cc: @TBaldas
