Serving the University of Texas at Austin community since 1900
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
@thedailytexan | thedailytexan.com
Volume 118, Issue 21
UNIVERSITY
A timeline of the
sexual assault case APRIL 2016:
By Will Clark
The Incident
Enterprise Reporter
A lawsuit facing the University and President Gregory Fenves argues that Fenves circumvented due process in suspending a student accused of rape in a Title IX case. The case is one of many in recent years that addresses due process and Title IX sexual assault cases. Last Thursday, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced plans to overhaul Title IX guidelines for sexual assault in an effort to protect both survivors and the accused. In this case, the University hearing did not find enough evidence to punish the male student. However, when the case was appealed, Fenves determined the female student was incapacitated and therefore unable to give consent. “Under University rules, someone who is intoxicated cannot give consent to sexual activity because they are incapacitated,” Fenves wrote in his seven-page determination. Fenves suspended the student for five semesters, starting the summer of 2017. The student then filed a lawsuit under the name “John Doe.” Representing John in the lawsuit is Austin attorney Brian Roark, who said the lawsuit is about due process and whether or not UT’s disciplinary process adheres to its requirements. “It’s unfair to have a hearing process that is supposed to provide due process but still allows for the most political figure at the University to change everything on a whim,” Roark said. “(The hearing is) just a facade.” Roark also argued that Fenves misinterpreted the school’s sexual assault policy and its definition of incapacitation. “It’s also unfair to have a definition of consent that doesn’t make any sense, that no one can understand and that
John and Jane, who met the afternoon before, attended Jane’s sorority formal. Both John and Jane drank before and during the formal and agreed they were both intoxicated on the way back to John’s apartment. Once inside John’s apartment, they agreed to have sex.
MAY–NOVEMBER:
The Investigation
zoe fu | daily texan staff
President Gregory Fenves is the defendant in a lawsuit that addresses the issue of due process in a Title IX sexual assault case. The lawsuit, filed by a student who was suspended from UT this calendar year, argues Fenves’ interpretation of the University’s sexual assault policy is unfair and that the University’s disciplinary system does not adhere to due process.
Roark also claims Fenves was biased in his decision. The survivor’s father is a donor who gave “significant sums” to the University within a month of the initial complaint, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also claims Fenves has a reputational and political interest in siding
the University cannot explain properly,” Roark said. “Fenves came up with his own definition.” Linda Millstone, interim Title IX coordinator, said she believes her office follows due process. “Due process means that it needs to be fair,” Millstone said. “We think our process is fair. We follow due process.”
LAWSUIT page 2
Supreme Court takes up Texas redistricting case By Chase Karacostas lawsuit was first filed In a 5–4 decision Tuesday night, U.S. Supreme Court ruled to block two lower court rulings to redraw several Texas legislative districts while it considers an appeal from Attorney General Ken Paxton. In a statement released Tuesday night, Paxton said Texas should use the maps adopted in 2012 by the same San Antonio court that recently declared them unconstitutional. “In 2012 the Supreme Court ordered the district court to adopt lawful maps, and we believe it did so,” Paxton said in the statement. “We are eager to proceed with this case in the high court.” The redistricting
in 2011 by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, MALC, and several other minority voting rights groups following the implementation of new electoral maps based on the 2010 census. They claimed the districts were drawn with the intent to discriminate against minority voting groups, especially Latino and African-American voters. “As a Texas voter, (the six-year battle) makes me sad or concerned because the only way that this process works is if we have fair and equal democracy,” said Mary Gonzalez, MALC member and a plaintiff in the case. “While I’m not happy that we’re not going to address the remedy sooner rather than later, I am that glad that there is still
Title IX investigators talked to Jane, John and other witnesses involved in the case. Linda Millstone, Title IX interim coordinator, said her office tries to have two out of six investigators on every case. To make a determination, investigators need a “preponderance of evidence,” which basically means “more likely than not,” Millstone said. The investigators found the evidence supported the finding that John violated the Institutional Rules on Student Services and Activities.
APRIL 12, 2017:
The Final Determination Jane appealed the hearing officer’s decision. After this point, the last place the case can go is the UT president’s office. The president’s determination is final. “It ends with the (president’s office),” Millstone said. John and Jane submitted written arguments and UT president Gregory Fenves, on April 12, made his final determination.
Jane filed a complaint to UT’s Title IX office.
WITHIN A MONTH OF THE COMPLAINT: Jane’s father donated “significant sums” to the University, according to the lawsuit.
FEBRUARY 3, 2017:
The Hearing If either party, complainant or respondent, disagrees about the findings or the proposed sanctions from the Title IX investigation, Millstone said they may request a University hearing. John requested a hearing. This involves a hearing officer, usually a UT faculty member or administrator, who reviews the evidence, calls witnesses and renders a decision. In this case, the officer did not support the claim that Jane was incapacitated and determined that John should not be punished.
SUMMER 2017–NOW:
The Sanctions As part of the sanctions, Fenves determined that John would be suspended from UT for five semesters, starting summer 2017.
AUGUST 8, 2017:
The Final Determination Attorney Brian Roark and John filed the lawsuit against the University and Fenves. In a preliminary hearing Aug. 11, U.S. Judge Sam Sparks took a first pass at the case. He called a paragraph in Fenves’ determination “absurd” while also criticizing Roark, saying his lawsuit contained more opinions than he would’ve liked, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
—Matthew Mackowiak, Conservative campaign consultant
a fight to fight.” The San Antonio court redrew the maps in 2012 following an U.S. Supreme Court order, and the state legislature ratified them with small changes in 2013. However, MALC and others sued again that year,
REDISTRICTING page 2
courtesy of mexican american legislative caucus
State representative Mary Gonzalez, D-Clint, is a plaintiff in the redistricting lawsuit against the state.
NEWS
OPINION
LIFE&ARTS
SPORTS
U.S. News names McCombs No. 5 business school in nation. PAGE 2
Columnists explains why students need to sleep. PAGE 4
Social media influencers take job market into their own hands. PAGE 8
Ex-Longhorns reflect on 2005 national title win over USC. PAGE 6
6267/UT Athletics; Process color
The Complaint
The Donation
STATE
Senior Reporter
DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT:
The Future With no court dates scheduled, the future of the case is unclear, but Sparks said he would try to find time for a more thorough hearing before the start of the spring semester, according to the Austin American-Statesman.