Thank you very much, HarvestMoon1, for finding the USC court filing in this case. I have read it and agree that “Petitioner cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”
If other posters are in doubt about this particular case, I strongly suggest reading the USC legal brief, “Opposition to ex parte application for stay.”
On the basis of the contents of the court filing, I think this thread is titled incorrectly. Admittedly, “weirdness” does cover a lot of territory, but the weirdness in this particular case does not seem to be in the operation of Title IX.
When I read about “rough-housing” initially, I assumed that the issue was “rough-housing.” I did not assume that the immediate issue was pushing the victim’s head into a wall twice, while holding her neck–actions that were only interrupted by the arrival of witnesses. Nor did I assume that the victim’s father had been previously notified by the victim’s friends that they were concerned about earlier bruising. Nor did I assume that there was a surveillance video. Nor would I have guessed that the accused was represented by an attorney from the get-go.
Whether any charges would have been filed had the situation been reported to the police, rather than to the university, I cannot say. Lawyers would know this better. I am guessing not, though.
We may or may not have the opportunity to see what various universities have to say about alleged injustices under Title IX, because the university’s process and the factual basis for the decision will not be laid out in this form, unless the accused seeks legal relief subsequently.