exchange deference to the university's handling of the campus sexual assault seat the court below said that the court would not second guess the thoroughness or accuracy of the university proceedings so long as the university complied with evaluating disciplinary proceedings on campus may refer even with regard to private schools to process principals and evidentiary rules in a valuating the fairness proceeding w you stated the improper fact finding and was that this in the very had to do with the for example the prejudicial hearing date there were the judge held below that forensic tests on john doe's hands and the enhanced video and analyzed video would not have been exposed to tory even on a developed factual record that was the same evidence that led the commonwealth to this mess all the criminal charges without condition by welding as it did the district were engaged in permissible factor on another example that would be the interference with the disciplinary hearing were during its the liberation and that was when he did liberations took place on friday and on a monday and over the weekend there were e mails and conversations between the chair of the disciplinary panel and the associate dean in the chair of the display or panel informed the associate dean that they were at the board was troubled by the fact that they needed to see certain evidence that's the evidence that's the forensic test on their hands in the video and they were troubled by that and they were considering issuing a decision called a no finding meaning insufficient evidence the and wondered whether in fact they could do that and that's in the rules that they're allowed to do that you're so see dean then talked to the dean who said yes we have that result but i  discourage it the associate dean reported this conversation back to the chair of the hearing panel saying they discourage the no finding that conduct is which the court below the don't have a problem with this that it didn't hearing all at the king's direction arguably taking the no finding option off the table there were no that did not come out until discovery in this case so they knew nothing about it so the second there was also interference by the university general counsel now it's clear although held said it remains undisputed that the board didn't contact mr hurley the general counsel until after the at the end of the day the board could not believe that this sexual assault took place as alleged that is a part of the language a budget at the rate from behind they could not believe that mr hurley he cave basis for their decision which is that although the board believes that some sort of unwanted touching of a sexual nature took place it is less likely than not that penetration was cheap and  is the position admitted supplying that language that as i said that's the linchpin of the decision it's also contrary to the evidence but it's the linchpin of the decision because it enabled the but word to get past the fact that they couldn't see the forensic test results which the state was in the process of preparing that were available until months later were the video so again that's the liberation with a skinny interference with a deliberative body and a one you just mentioned the procedural one even if they call their own procedures there were not reasonable grounds to support the decision is the university coins it was an absolute failure of and that's what makes this  well if you if you fail if the procedures are fair and we do not concede that they were fair if you follow the fair if you don't follow the fair procedures it's a bridge contract so just having the procedure what is it just having the procedures isn't good enough you must fall short of that it was going to obviously part of that is having a decision that supported by the evidence here as i said there was an absolute failure of proof and whether we want to say that that it's violation of the contract to your point judge it's all the same and that is simply this if there is no proof the decision cannot stand the contract which says that no finding is one of the options that's a sort of allegation that i've done i wonder why that doesn't create a genuine issue of material fact since there is testimony to back  all of the testimony of all of the witnesses who were involved with the panels to liberations was that the panel on day one of its the liberations had decided there was evidence from which it could find there was an inappropriate touching of a b correct but we're in her room fifty six here and the question is could reasonable her look at those emails and say that what basically happened here was one of the four options under the contract one of the ones t bull allegation that survives a motion to dismiss we've had complete discovery there's a fully developed factual record and the question for the fifty six decision is is there evidence from which a reasonable fact the end doesn't matter along absolutely correct if you were a full articulation of it taking the view in the late most favorable to place but the evidence is simply not there to deem that there is a tribal issue of fact here clear yes for responsible period he doesn't say it's not a coolie escrow responsible on the most serious charge but we're all copacetic on the son try she wants to add that which is not in her those e mails mean that provides and the plaintiff who has the opportunity to depose and depose revering hughes and every single member of that panel it was the plaintiff spurred to develop some held numerous times to go and this is true even in cases of discrimination including employment discrimination cases the plaintiff has got to go beyond speculation conjecture hypothesis and unsupported inference the burden is not str when he came in to testify are you saying that's not interference i am saying that's absolutely not interference he there is no suggestion that hughes was trying to sway the opinion of the panel at all there it just seems a very substantial interference here far from substantial interference it seems eight and completely innocuous comment as to which there is no evidence that it had any effect every one of these panel members was deposed and evidence was developed and submitted into the record as to what was the basis of their decision what was the evidence on which they made their findings and what was going through their minds as they went through their deliberations there is no evidence that any panel member was swayed in any way by a suggestion from the dean's office that somehow they were not to give full and complete consideration to doe's defense whatever it might be the fact is there was very clear ample evidence from which this panel could find and did find that doe was the one who assaulted a b which is reported in our brief and i submitted with plate that is inviting the panel to do in the guise of in a way that makes sense and what the procedures provide is that dean is supposed to meet with the student and discuss the case without prescribing any particular discussion needs to happen and it's undisputed that the discussion included telling him what he was being charged with and over the course of three different meetings giving him an opportunity to review the statements that were going to be admitted against him meeting with him and both of his parents and explaining how the process was going to go for person's side of the story and if we might even if we indulge every inference in favor of the plaintiff here there's no evidence from which anyone could conclude that it would have made any difference if dean hughes had sat there longer and listened to a fuller articulation of why it was that he thought j k did it the policies have to be read in their entirety they make absolutely clear that the dean has complete discretion to refer the case promptly to a hearing board to comply with its procedures and those procedures must be basically fair and would basically fair means including as articulated in the government case that your honor participated in even at a public institution what fairness means w but it is it is implicate for the starting point or the first circuit cases and it is just the cases that say it's not for the court to second guess the pianist decision as to what evidence to admit or not to admit but more particularly here there's no evidence that any excluded evidence would have had any impact on the outcome of this case it was the forensic evidence about a lot of the absence of blood on doze hands which had nothing to do with the finding of inappropriate touching without penetration and it was the argument that the panel should have seen a purportedly enhanced version of the video where they saw that video there was no evidence of the still in the and hence version was going to be available which wasn't until a year and a no one challenge that hall her statement in any way as to what happened to her and yet came out and said she was wrong to happen to her that way was a less serious and i think i think to be fair what they at this point is to come forward with actual evidence not just a hypothesis that amounts to nothing more than argument and there is in fact no evidence to support the argument that the wrist hampering with this pales deliberations  emergency room physician into the school for us and at the end of the day the board impermissibly discounted that version of events and created their own they rejected avi's evidence they hide in this that what ju talking about so far we just mentioned that there are a number of other standalone issues that we've raised and i would be happy to address any questions about any of those with the panel my him and then