Brooklyn College/@GC_CUNY history professor.
Former Fulbright professor at @telavivuni
Former track announcer at Scarborough Downs & the VT State Fair.
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). 
Lawsuit alleges selective enforcement claim--rules enforced against Jewish and pro-Israel students but not against non-Jewish and anti-Israel students.
Very broad ruling on due process--in a tough circuit.
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." 
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." 
Wilkinson dissent: Bias reporting team policies read "like a mission statement of a committee dedicated to rooting out dissent. A student whose views fail to align with campus orthodoxy would think twice before speaking under such a menacing regime." 
Decision becomes first to assign the new CA5 TIX Purdue pleading standard (adopted in the Van Overdam decision). Cites three key areas--illogical nature of decision; procedural irregularities; gendered statements by TCU officials. 
Under a heading of “support for students,” measure outlines a wide variety of rights & protections for complainants (including restricting the terms through which schools can discipline false reports)—but offers no rights or protections for acc’d students. 
Court grants Purdue SJ on due process count--on technical grounds. Suggests student voluntarily informed NROTC of investigation, and that if he hadn't done so, perhaps NROTC wouldn't have found out & thus student had no property right under CA7 precedent. Misses forest for trees. 
This was a wild case factually--a student witness blackmailing another witness (& this info not shared by Dordt inv'r), TIX coordinator who printed out expulsion letters before the hearing panel even met, Dordt officials destroying notes & not taking notes of interviews. 
This case involved self-described queer Idaho Law student, who said that students who ran Christian Legal Society branch made her feel unsafe--by expressing their views about marriage in a public event & (for one student) by inviting her to talk about issue more if she wanted. 
The opinion is *very* fact-specific. Court begins by denying Harvard MTD re the decision to w/hold acc'd student's degree. Student had (persuasively, it turned out) pointed out that Harvard's language suggested degree could be w/held only if TIX charges filed against him. 
Opinion has very strong language on pressure (from the federal government through the Dear Colleague letter, from campus sources) to crack down on acc'd students as one element of a plausible TIX claim. 
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." 
This was a v. strong TIX opinion, albeit one based on a v. strong complaint. Court comments on single inv'r seemingly inexplicable decision to ding credibility of acc'd student on minor issues while ignoring significant credibility concerns in accuser's story. 