Perhaps we should keep due process in real courts, not university kangaroo courts.

Justin Wm. Moyer reported at the Washington Post.

University unfair to student accused of sexual assault, says California judge

A California trial court judge in San Diego has determined that a college student found responsible for sexual misconduct by a university disciplinary board was not given a fair hearing by the school. The student, who faced a year’s suspension, was not given an adequate chance to challenge the findings of a university investigator or to cross-examine his accuser.

While the decision may or may not have wider legal application, it comes amid a wide debate about the procedures used by universities to adjudicate complaints of sexual assault, which generally give the accused much less leeway to defend themselves than is required by the courts.

John Doe and Jane Roe — students of the University of California at San Diego referred to in court documents by these pseudonyms — had a number of sexual encounters in early 2014 when they were both undergraduates. Some were consensual; some allegedly were not. In June, Roe complained about Doe to the university, alleging assault as well as retaliation. Doe was found responsible by the university for digitally penetrating Roe the day after they had allegedly had sex for the first time.

The investigator believed Roe.

“I find Ms. Roe credible in her assertion that she objected to physical activity during the morning in a clear and unambiguous manner, and that Mr. Doe repeatedly ignored these objections, despite Ms. Roe telling him that his touching was painful,” a university investigator wrote in a report. “I find Ms. Roe did not intend to engage in any sexual activity during the morning, and that Mr. Doe ignored Ms. Roe’s wishes that he refrain from touching her.”

“While the Court respects the university’s determination to address sexual abuse and violence on its campus,” Judge Joel M. Pressman wrote in a July 10 ruling, “… the Court finds that in this particularly [sic] case, the hearing against petitioner was unfair.”

“Here, cross-examination was essential,” the judge wrote. “The Student Conduct Review Report made findings regarding the credibility of Ms. Roe and the outcome turned on her testimony.”