because the court error as a matter of law when it concluded that go ahead a likelihood of success on his breach of contract and basic fairness class at the district court made at will and based on its conclusion as a matter of basic fairness we submit that that conclusion on the part of the district court hears contrary not only to established principles of massachusetts law but also contrary to this court's holding just a year ago in another was a hearing modeled in place at that time but the crux of this court's decision in that case when it came up for appeal was the central shareholding that in relation to basic fairness the university's obligations are described in its formal procedures that the court said whereas in this case boston college makes a promise of fundamental fairness that promise become as in the court's job in determining whether basic fairness was afforded is done by examining whether the university complied with its stated procedures and it was important in doing that that the court rejected every argument the plaintiff offered in that case for a procedure that was different from or in addition to the ones that d c afforded that is the critical point in the case not that the court didn't  of massachusetts state law that independent obligation of basic fairness amounts to is notice and an opportunity to be heard that is what the obligation of basic fairness requires a obligation to provide basic fairness includes that obligation to provide for some procedural right that is different from or in addition to what the university's procedures entailed and so we see i addition to those the university provide overly generous interpretation of what the district court did i don't think the district court's opinion or the rationale of the judge would like offer that oral argument can really be summarized as an attempt on his part to describe what massachusetts law is where massachusetts was going to go based upon a reading of massachusetts state court cases he didn't do that instead what he did was say i think hijack is controlling on me here because the language in hi says due process requires other university in a disciplinary case like this one is an opportunity for real time cross examination and he emphasized the fact that the court in the hague said this is what due process context of a public university so i don't think a judge would while he was trying in any way by i should say it that way judge with oral can't be seem to have been engaged in an interpretation of massachusetts state court cases rather he was i submit making a prediction of where he thinks massachusetts and all ought to go and we submit that it was improper for here for him to go there in a way that departs from repeatedly the notion that there is a difference between private and public institutions and with private institutions under massachusetts law they are to be afforded wide latitude and broad discretion in fashioning their disciplinary procedures that's language that you don't see in cases involving public institutions and the constitutional right to d as a student would reasonably be expected to understand them be applied allegation of basic fairness we submit is that of notice and an opportunity to be heard as a matter of procedure  the respondent in this case was involved in an ongoing iterative process in which he was interviewed more than once in which he was informed completely we submit as to the nature of the allegations against him and not just what the nature of the church was but the specifics of what jane wrote was saying in support of her complaint against him he was afforded the opportunity to understand what she was saying and respond to it in the interviews them the multiple interviews he had with the investigators and perhaps most importantly before the investigative report was spiral ised he and his counsel and it's not insignificant we submit that he had the assistance of counsel throughout this process he and his counsel had the opportunity to review it complete evidence by of which included you know any text messages or documentary evidence that the the decision maker or one of the same here this is just to give the model where the and a pair of investigators conducts the investigation and makes the findings of fact including the finding whether there's been a violation of the code of conduct but it's important to note that the investigators here had that opportunity not once but on the occasions to observe the complainant in real time as she responded to its questioning and it wasn't just the investigators  questions that they came up with it was the investigators questions informed by input from john and his attorney as to whether they should be working for in assessing the complaint its credibility  aspects of her story should be probed for into consistencies all of that was done by the investigators in real time with an opportunity to observe the complainant and in doing so to a sister judgment about her credibility so it's absolutely the case that we say hey that doesn't control here hey because the case that ought to be read as it states on its face as one involving the constitutional right to due process it doesn't apply to a case at the university of massachusetts managed to conduct a hearing reasonably calculated to get at the truth by allowing the responded to be heard after the complainant story had been it was suited by examining in the complain in a manner reasonably calculated to expose any relevant flaws in her claims that where the current high deck landed as to what to require even at a public university and that plainly