Thread by @kcjohnson9

Just in: In first-of-kind ruling, court issues preliminary injunction against @rpi for insisting on adjudicating a TIX case that originated pre-8/14 w/o following the new, more due process-friendly TIX procedures. Court v. dubious about RPI's rationale for doing so.

Court--citing to CA2 precedent in Columbia & Menaker--notes oddity of university keeping two sets of procedures: " disregard for the inevitable administrative headaches of a multi-procedure approach certainly qualifies as evidence of an irregular adjudicative process."

Court also notes "bizarre" RPI rationale--in case of mutual intoxication--seemingly not to apply same standards to acc'd student as it did to accuser.

Court also faults RPI decisionmaking biases: where "female's complaint is accepted, flaws and all, while the male's complaint is rejected for having similar flaws, that discrepancy lends force to the conclusion that the difference is traceable to gender discrimination."

Court also clear that--regardless of ED's intent w/blog post saying that regs aren't retroactive to pre-8/14 allegations--courts aren't bound to follow that reasoning in evaluating TIX lawsuits from acc'd students.

On irreparable harm: if RPI can ignore new TIX regs, acc'd student "will be going into a hearing at which there is substantial evidence that the factfinder is biased against him based on his sex and will thus lean toward finding guilt based on his sex alone."

Court: "It is troubling enough that defendant frames protections for one individual's due process rights, whether that individual be male or female, as inciting campus sexual assault on a mass scale"--but RPI also seems to presume guilt in its arguments.

Public interest factor: "that the new Title IX rules exist at all is evidence that national policymakers have determined that protecting the due process rights of those accused of sexual assault on college campuses is a matter of grave national import."

Court bluntly concludes, reflecting point long made by @ScottGreenfield : "whatever answer may come to the question of how to secure the rights of an accusing woman and an accused man, that answer cannot be that all men are guilty. Neither can it be that all women are victims."

Full ruling, from Judge David Hurd (Clinton nominee), is below:
kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/rpi-iv…

Acc'd student's case (expertly, given novelty of the issue) handled by Julie Nociolo, of #joneshackermurphy.