Another male student’s request for a preliminary injunction alleging gender-discrimination in the school’s sexual assault investigation was dismissed in federal court on Wednesday, illustrating once again the difficulty students are having in the federal system.
Despite this, Judge Steve Jones (who was nominated for the court by President Obama) wrote that Georgia Institute of Technology’s adjudication process was “very far from an ideal representation of due process.”
The student, identified only as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleged that his due process rights were violated and that he was discriminated against because of his male gender in order for Georgia Tech to appear tough on campus sexual assault. On both counts the judge ruled against the student, meaning the student’s current expulsion will stand.
Georgia Tech employs a single-investigator model for adjudicating accusations of sexual assault, meaning just one person investigates and judges the allegation. In this case, that investigator, Peter Paquette, ignored inconsistencies in the accuser’s story, yet determined the accused to be not credible after he admitted to telling a single lie, which he corrected. Paquette also refused to interview witnesses on behalf of the accused, including two who could have disputed the accuser’s claim.
The judge in this case did note that he was “greatly troubled” by some of the problems with Georgia Tech’s process, including the single-investigator model. “It appears from the evidence before the court that Mr. Paquette did not pursue any line of investigation that may have cast doubt on [the accuser’s] account of the incident, even though such lines were present in this case,” Judge Jones wrote. Among these lines of investigation was one of Doe’s suggested witnesses, the president of the accuser’s sorority, who said the accuser only told her something “could” have happened the night she alleged she was assaulted.
Paquette also included in his report unsubstantiated rumors about Doe.
Doe appealed his case twice after the initial finding, and each time the appellate panel upheld the initial decision. Judge Jones argues that since the appeals panels deliberated over the case (even though they didn’t try to pursue lines of inquiry like the ignored witnesses), that means Doe was able to have his side heard. Judge Jones, though troubled by numerous flaws in Georgia Tech’s process, didn’t believe those flaws violated Doe’s constitutional rights to due process.
Jones also determined that there was no gender bias in Doe’s case. Jones further denied that Doe would suffer harm due to his expulsion and gap in education because he didn’t provide “evidence” that he would be questioned about the gap. Of course, no such evidence exists, as it is something that would happen in the future.
So, basically, Georgia Tech’s process is deeply flawed, but there’s nothing the federal court can or will do about it. Such is the fate of many accused students, who face a higher burden of proof in a legal setting than the accusers do in the school setting.
Doe’s attorney would not speak to the Washington Examiner on the record.
Updated to include that Judge Jones was an Obama-nominated judge.
