Just in: district court denies summary judgment to @CUBoulder on multiple due process grounds--propriety of single-investigator model, lack of x-examination, & withholding identity of key pro-accuser witness. Schedules trial for Dec. 1.
On single inv'r model, court notes: "Requiring a hearing before a neutral arbitrator would also reduce the risk of error . . . provid[ing] a fresh perspective on any credibility determinations and decrease the likelihood that a party would be erroneously found responsible."
Remarkably blunt conclusion on x-examination--quotes SCOTUS on truth-seeking nature of x-examination, notes obvious need from student's side. "The University’s interests in limiting procedural safeguards relating to student’s hearing rights are less evident."
Court: "This is a classic 'he said, she said' case that turns almost entirely on witness credibility. Without live adversarial questioning, Plaintiff cannot probe the witnesses’ stories to test their memories or potential ulterior motives, or to observe the witnesses’ demeanor."
Court also notes that university's (seemingly inexplicable) decision to withhold identity of pro-accuser witness might have violated due process clause.
Court grants SJ on two other contested counts: university's curious decision to rely solely on police interviews of accuser, univ's decision to use "trauma-informed" training.
Full ruling, from Judge William Martinez (Obama nominee), is below: courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Quite an opening anecdote in this richly reported @TheAtlantic piece on Stanford after Oct. 7.
Interesting analysis here--which I'm not sure fully explains *why* the average student has changed (or why the average student wasn't horrified by the events of Oct. 7).
Fascinating excerpt w/prominent anti-Israel prof--who either dissembles about his position or is simply Orwellian in his language.
The key argument in antisemitism lawsuit filed today against @MIT: "MIT tolerated discriminatory, harassing speech that it had expressly not tolerated in other comparable situations."
Lawsuit alleges selective enforcement claim--rules enforced against Jewish and pro-Israel students but not against non-Jewish and anti-Israel students.
Allegation re harassment of Jewish profs is troubling.
Complaint unsurprisingly cites troubling incident where MIT acknowledged that anti-Israel protesters violated MIT rules, but then declined to move forward on discipline due to "visa" issues.
A short thread, with audio, on 1964, the anomaly in @JMilesColeman's excellent piece on Senate/presidential ticket-splitting, which usually has benefited Dems.
In 1964, the GOP won six Senate races (CA, DE, HI, NE, PA, VT) in states carried by LBJ.
For LBJ the most consequential was Delaware: “I want to beat this son-of-a-bitch [John] Williams.”
LBJ was even willing to do a deal with RFK (clip below) where LBJ agreed to extra time campaigning for RFK in NYC if RFK mobilized civil rights leaders against Wiliams.
In three other states—CA, HI, PA—party divisions undid the Dems. PA was especially notable—legal fights over an exceptionally close primary weakened nominee Genevieve Blatt, who would have become the first woman elected to the Senate who hadn’t succeeded her husband in Congress.
Just in: IL district court grants preliminary injunction in @UofIllinois basketball player TJ Shannon case. Orders suspension lifted.
Very broad ruling on due process--in a tough circuit.
"Plaintiff has alleged that the University’s arbitrary decision to suspend him for sexual misconduct has deprived him of a protected liberty interest: his freedom to pursue a career of his choice in basketball."
Court cites favorably the key due process reasoning of now-Justice Barrett's decision in Purdue: "The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the hearing must be “a real one, not a sham or pretense.”
@brandeiscenter lawsuit against Cal-Berkeley focuses heavily on student-group rule that excludes Zionists from membership, speaking, & in one case publishing in a law journal.
Hard to argue rule is viewpoint-based when Berkeley leaders have conceded it's antisemitic.
As w/recent NYU lawsuit, Berkeley complaint provides window on the post-10/7 campus atmosphere for Jewish student: "lecturer who told students that class was over early before proceeding to embark on an anti-Israel rant for 18 minutes."
Complaint also contains explosive allegation re UC chancellor, who allegedly "told some members of the Berkeley community that her public statement addressing the attacks was not as strong as she would have liked due to her concerns about violence on the campus."
CT Supreme Court: "Statements made in sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings that are offered and accepted without adequate procedural safeguards carry too great a risk of unfair or unreliable outcomes."
Yale accuser not entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
CT Supreme Court: Students accused of sexual assault "often face life altering and stigmatizing consequences...we must acknowledge that the accused’s right to fundamental fairness is no less important than the right of the accuser or the larger community to achieve justice."
CT Supreme Court: if university wants to give TIX accusers absolute quasi-judicial immunity, the process needs to have sufficient procedural protections.