Reversing a lower court's dismissal of the anonymous student's claims against Purdue University, Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote that it was "Plausible" that Purdue's investigation panel "Chose to believe Jane [Doe] because she is a woman and to disbelieve John [Doe] because he is a man." The court held that the university violated the student's due process rights and engaged in gender discrimination, forbidden by the Title IX statute.
In John Doe v. Purdue University, the plaintiff relied solely on a statement written on the accuser's behalf by the campus victims' rights office.
In what Judge Barrett called a "Perplexing" decision, Purdue found the accused student guilty of sexual assault after a hearing in which the accuser didn't even appear.
The university then withheld the investigator's report from Doe, a decision that the court labeled "Fundamentally unfair." Indeed, university officials appeared to have rendered their verdict upon hearing the accusation.
To Purdue spokesperson Brian Zink Doe received "Broad and appropriate protections." That an institution helmed by one of the nation's finest university presidents, former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, deemed "Appropriate" a process that a federal appeals court considered a "Sham" speaks volumes about fairness in Title IX tribunals.
With appeals from other accused students currently pending in the First, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, the Supreme Court could decide whether colleges are constitutionally obligated to give accused students a fair shake in Title IX hearings.
In an interview last year with the Atlantic, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that "The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself ... There's been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that's one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know." Previewing the reasoning of Judge Barrett's Purdue opinion, Ginsburg concluded that "Everyone deserves a fair hearing." Let's hope that Justice Ginsburg's reasonable interpretation of the principle of due process gets heard, too.
https://www.city-journal.org/john-doe-v-purdue-univ
In John Doe v. Purdue University, the plaintiff relied solely on a statement written on the accuser's behalf by the campus victims' rights office.
In what Judge Barrett called a "Perplexing" decision, Purdue found the accused student guilty of sexual assault after a hearing in which the accuser didn't even appear.
The university then withheld the investigator's report from Doe, a decision that the court labeled "Fundamentally unfair." Indeed, university officials appeared to have rendered their verdict upon hearing the accusation.
To Purdue spokesperson Brian Zink Doe received "Broad and appropriate protections." That an institution helmed by one of the nation's finest university presidents, former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, deemed "Appropriate" a process that a federal appeals court considered a "Sham" speaks volumes about fairness in Title IX tribunals.
With appeals from other accused students currently pending in the First, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, the Supreme Court could decide whether colleges are constitutionally obligated to give accused students a fair shake in Title IX hearings.
In an interview last year with the Atlantic, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that "The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself ... There's been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that's one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know." Previewing the reasoning of Judge Barrett's Purdue opinion, Ginsburg concluded that "Everyone deserves a fair hearing." Let's hope that Justice Ginsburg's reasonable interpretation of the principle of due process gets heard, too.
https://www.city-journal.org/john-doe-v-purdue-univ
No comments:
Post a Comment