Judge sides with uni in student's dismissal

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2018-07-29 08:53

Article here. Excerpt:

'While a former University of Illinois student accused of sexual assault lost his lawsuit this week against the university, a federal judge urged the UI to change how it investigates sexual assault claims.

U.S. District Court Judge Colin Bruce ruled narrowly in favor of the UI, concluding that "John Doe" wasn't entitled to due process in this case because he didn't prove that he suffered a "tangible loss" after being dismissed from the UI for 2 years.

"Mere defamation by the government does not deprive a person of a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, even when it causes serious impairment of one's future employment," Bruce wrote, later writing that Doe failed to show "he has a legally protected entitlement to his continued education at the university."

Doe "failed to identify a property interest at stake, and thus there is no need for the court to proceed," Bruce wrote.

"We expect to appeal," said Doe's lawyer in Chicago, Mark Roth.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The judge fairly crept away from this case with his tail between his legs. Utter hogwash. Defamation BY THE STATE is NOT something the ppl are protected from? So the state is free to blithely accuse ppl of all manner of things with or without foundation and gee, that's OK? I believe the Chinese Constitution probably permits this but I do believe any number of rights under the US Con'n when taken together guarantee the ppl the right to be free of unfounded accusations bandied about by both the state and our fellow citizens. After all, slander and libel are tortious offenses, at times criminal ones. Proving intent in criminal cases can be hard but few things in life are easy esp. where court cases are concerned.

I do hope the appellate judge will show greater concern for the interests of justice.

Like1 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2018-07-29 17:13