of the shank and before the court asking you to reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of carleton college and the claims that were remaining after current college decision i'd like to start with the title nine claim and i would ask the court to look carefully as you will at the factual record here because  there is substantial material fact disputes about a number of actions that michigan has alleged that carlton was unreasonably acting clearly and reasonably known facts and i will begin chronologically starting with the procedure that was held against student one it is undisputed that student one rate in carrollton dormitory it is also undisputed that right after the rape although i believe that there was a dispute about whether she asked or not but again on the summary judgment that should be resolved in the shade favor it is undisputed that alternative  under current and procedures was not offered to her at that point she spent a number of months living across the hall from the student who had raped her ultimately it came out that  that she had been raped by student one it further came out that student one had been offered a residential assistant position at carlton and at that known that student one had been offered an ira position many of the rights that carl had told mr shane she was entitled to under their policies including rights that were not dependent on whether or not she brought a complaint were taken away from her and it's undisputed that she was not it was not advised that if she failed to come forward and assert a complaint her own behalf that a lot of those rights she would be deprived of and i think there are material fact about whether schank wanted to attend the hearing or not but i think it is undisputed that the investigator never spoke with michelle even though nischelle thank had submitted a written statement that up if she did not proceed as a complaint hadn't had carlton not proceeded with the complaint what what rights would nice change be giving up in other words i understand that there's a concern that once carlton went through with the complaint she was no longer a party so to speak to it so could not appeal the the result or be sort of a participant as she otherwise would be if she were the complaint and if that had gone through with there are other things that she would have been giving up that you're asserting carlton should've told her about had comments and not gone forward  really i guess maybe i'm misunderstanding the question but if current had not come forward at that point and taken over the pursuit chair all of the rights that were under the policies would still have been shank's court and we argue one reason why carlton acted on clearly unreasonably was because a lot of those rights should still have been an airport for example the right to appeal  cleary act says that colleges have to have a procedure where the victim is allowed to appeal not the party not the complaint and the victim it's clear that michelle and her mother ask example and i think you want to get that regimen people have it just so i want to make sure i understand the crux of the complaint that she should have had the opportunity to bring her own complaint which would have had a party that the right to appeal  mention is that what you're saying in part i'm also saying that even though carlton went forward with the procedure shank should still have had a right to appeal whether or not she was the party or the complainant and in fact the dean at the time dean where there said even though shank was not the complaint tent which is an argument that carlton is made she says still should have been allowed to participate in the process honor i think it's because the facts are that carlton did go forward she was deprived of rights of which she was not informed and joanne mullen testify no we never told ms shank that if this proceeded forward she would lose these rights but our position always also is even with the factual record as it is shank was still deprived of rights that she was entitled to think there are also material fact disputes about the one on one meeting that occurred in october of new shank's sophomore year i believe their material fact disputes about whether or not  with the nd student who raped her whether she wanted a procedure to go forward whether she was told she couldn't bring a formal complaint against student two because student two was graduating and several months there undisputed facts that carlton was on notice that student two was a predator and they did nothing to other than i should say they did nothing that's not correct they did issue a no contact order as regards the four students who filed community concern forms against him but there was no other action taken to prevent him from preying on other in his case being male students there are fact disputes about as regards student one whether the sanctions work a measure with other students who have been found in violation of the sexual misconduct policy and i'm aware there's case law that says inadequate sanctions are not enough to state a title line claim but we have so much more than that in this case more than just inadequate sanctions even the inadequate for even the sanctions against in one that were levied it's undisputed that they were not well quired for example to get six counseling sessions undisputed he only got one nothing was done so even the sanctions that were imposed against student one were not the appellate here did not and would not reveal the name of the alleged perpetrator for an extended period of time and if that's the case is that significant or do i understand your argument to be that that time period in which in which she did not want to reveal the name of this person preceded the  the deficient actions of the of the college and what you're complaining about comes after the identity finally came out through other other sources  the identity came out in may of two thousand and twelve and everything i've been talking about other than for example the failure to offer alternative housing right away that occurred earlier but everything i was discussing about student one occurred after his agenda day was known and frankly i think that's the reason why so much of this happened it's undisputed that currently did not at that point in time ha along and i think that goes d to the heart of why so many clearly and reasonable steps had been taken so it's after he is agenda day was discovered and more as a college and as the attorney here today how do i respond to the experts i think that what are experts are really saying is that's normal sure that there's no dispute that that may be normal but there's also no dispute that under the thing nonetheless as an obligation under the law to take appropriate action when that learns of of sexual misconduct if carlton knew that the unidentified student one lived on the shank dormitory floor by february why didn't that trigger the obligation under its own policies to find her also alternative housing  parents and help professional she did not want to disclose the identity of student one at that time now it is not clearly unreasonable carlton you know and all of that information to allow me the train to return to her door i think the but i maybe i misunderstood i thought in february when the when the poster came out that then w he wasn't identified by name i might and perhaps i misunderstood but i thought carlton at that point knew either through the community forum notations or some other information that a student asked to be moved and when she did she was moved immediately and carlton staff made sure that that mood was with go through it without her having to explain for situation or the reasons for it and i think deliberately indifferent not that move the plaintiff during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding standard that applies here now as i mentioned because it is shank was reluctance to bring a complaint then decided that it would bring one in order to bring about the outcome that she had express sanction now ms baroness raises the issue of make the argument that there was some dispute of fact as to the degree to which ms frank wanted to participate in the hearing what testimony and as it must as true now what is what is not in dispute is that after she knew she would not be participating in the hearing this bank was given the opportunity to supplement her written statement and a considering moving forward as the complainant and that they did not disclose that to me the shame because they wanted to give her time and space to make a decision and she was still in the process of deciding whether she wanted to bring a complaint to her own  of all the poster as i understand you're drawing a very fine line she complains about the posters and the posters are pretty provocative candid like when i when i looked at it she complained about the posters and i think the district court and you are relying up on the fact well they didn't take them down when she complains about them and it was upsetting to her don't you take it off a legal lipstick approach to this in the given the information shows at the school at the time they were safe they took steps to but were unable to identify who that was based on the the handful of facts that they knew that the dorm location the fact that the other posters are not in there's only one poster write one go hard poster in the in the record right r r several of these athletic posters in th that earlier returned to the dorm with with the advent of her parents and her medical professional and had a plan for ongoing treatment with a therapist at the college i was sorry i had another question on the poster i used to argue cases i hate this but i'm going to do it to you does the record show how long the posters were up acts of sexual harassment or sexual assault and i think that it would be like the reaction of carlton once they knew her reaction to it it seems maybe not the putting aside your view of the posters and just putting them up not to who exactly hung the boat there is speculation that it was a student poster as opposed to something sanctioned by the indifference and what the court found is that those allegations were links the colleges in action to emotional trauma and what title nine requires is that those allegations amount to deliberate indifference shank testified that it was d she who insisted that the meeting occur along one on one with student one even though carlton had asked whether someone else can be present i'm page eight hundred and sixty sure you want to bring a complaint and encourage her to focus on academics that is not talking somebody out of filing a complaint and then went back met with her friend and decided she in her written statement did not want to proceed with a complaint should began seeing the posters of student one so that's roughly the time just like january of two thousand and twelve that would be and  then schank also testified later than when she was allowed to move in a brawl that the posters that were hanging right by her dorm were  still there so that's about all that's in the record about how long the posters had been hanging anything in the record about who really put him up no your honor  there is none we had argued that because they said charlton track and field you understand the argument your honor as regards the one on one needing it is understood disputed that it was mr student one excuse me all around the campus so she goes to carlton she says why am i seeing him everywhere they issued the no contact order the next day she has realized that she is really struggling seeing student one around the campus she is told the only way you can learn about the other sanctions against him is by meeting with him so d the meeting did not occur in a vacuum there was a background as to why michelle thank was at that point willing to meet with him and so we would argue there is a jury question about whether that constitutes coordination d or not as regards student two i think there are back disputes about what was said in the shay as regards pursuing nineteen dash three thousand and forty seven is submitted by decision for the court this myth