short of graduation based on sexual misconduct complaints that were made right after a sexual climate from that occurred in october of his senior year we're following two events his freshman year  discovery we believe the shown facts amply supporting an erroneous outcome case and that the district court and called to rely on a one sided incomplete statement  one sided you could say one sided but you're either going to be win or lose and you lost because the coalgate following whatever procedures they had came to the determination that they did no i mean one side in a different the erroneous outcome but right but but you still have to show that there is gender absolutes going to be absolutely absolutely and first of all let me deal with your concern when i say one sided they're not dealing with elements of the summary judgment record not that what happened to call gate for example left out of the district court opinion and colditz treatment is who plaintiff is and his accounts his accounts of what happened that night and those matter because if you take those accounts then we should not have had a joinder of the three complaints because there was an effect of consolidation you should not have had a situation in which he doesn't get a fair opportunity to defend himself he doesn't learn about the specific accusations against him until two weeks before the hearing what was said by each of the three women right now it doesn't have a case so that's confidential appendix that we're team well isn't it doesn't say well this is number one this is number two this is number three this is what they said you did did you do it he said it didn't happen no i'm not saying that didn't happen it was not related to a sexual misconduct complaint the first time he was being interviewed by program oh yes sex investigator for the college yes and when he met with officer why were they meeting when he met with brogan in december he asked tell me details of what was you know what i'm being accused of and she said well that's an appropriate two paragraphs or one of them all three this is what they said you did to them you're saying that no i'm not saying that didn't happen i'm saying that when you know women there's a level of specificity ok and i don't want to quibble but what john don't say it is i did not understand until march that these were sexual misconduct complaints is just a general statement the specific specifics are what were the problem jane doe three for example alleged sexual abuse in the bathroom of her dorm john doe's story which he wrote up once he didn't even go into the dorm and he goes you were sixteen yeah so yes and i might add that when he gives this when he first was interviewed with was in a position where he is thinking back what happened doing the best he can but he doesn't have all the details of what is a notice one change of the  administration is that you are supposed to up front give written notice of the accusations involved in any case so that there is an fair opportunity deal with them that's why  written notice up front by the way this is just one of a number of issues and i you know looking at your taking up the time the way you want to take it i know i was responding to questions and i'm sorry  know that she is fully qualified and the statements made about her not providing factual support are just not true you can't say there's not evidence of gender bias her testimony is very helpful  understanding why there is because gender bias manifests itself in the way that the process works and how it's set up generally sex gender bias complainant it's used to justify not having cross examination it is what one actually calls another one junk science well because it's a misuse and it to find the investigator testifying at the hearing that it was trauma that rationalizes and justifies what three years passes and they don't bring these complaints why there were no you investigation she assumes the males are guilty she assumes females are truthful she adds various witnesses well you know if it didn't happen why would they say these stories well there is an answer that john doe is put to a hearing where he has three scheduled hearing supposedly before the same panel and you have error here that would at least be in a court of law because you have a con your honour's may please the court my name is laura harshbarger here on behalf of cole university i wanted to just a couple of seconds if i could please to point this court to record evidence that disputes mr violaters representation of the associate dean for conduct kimberly taylor that he was under investigation pursuant to the college's e g p policy which is the policy that concerns sexual misconduct and at pages seven zero three to seven zero five of the fourteen a confidential appendix one fourteen to one seventeen as the court has pointed out at that point in time he was told of each one of the individuals who was accusing him he was a toll told of the specific day an incident that was under investigation and he was able to provide his account of those incidents to mr byler says but he wasn't told exactly what the complainants were alleging that's not gender bias because your honour's the complainants were not told john doe's account either so the party said this is a gender biased case and we all understand that this court has repeatedly said in title seven cases for example that it does not sit as a super personnel department reviewing business decisions there must be bias in order for this court to have a role it's all the more the case when we're talking about student disciplinary proceedings where all federal courts are loath to retry student disappointing proceedings there has to be gender bias the complainants had no more access to this investigative file than john doe didn't they were given access to the exactly the same day so that's the day that they learned what was in the file in terms of witnesses and investigations that is march twenty seventh around or twenty fourteen correct earlier that's only for the year your honor it was about ten or eleven days before the hearing the the the investigation didn't conclude until shortly before that time the policy provides for one week's advance notice this was more advance notice but again you're not sure taking a step gender bias in terms of this file was found was seventy two pages anyway john doe claims you can't read seventy two pages in eleven days yes you can john doe didn't request to review this file until april third that's his choice it was available to him as of march twenty seventh john doe knew about these allegations your we just went through this right he knew about these exact incidents right one after of the g p policy has a gender neutral provision in it that says that evidence of a pattern of behavior that might be relevant to some issue in the case may be considered by the student disciplinary panel so in this case associate dean for conduct taylor concluded that there are looking at the incidents in the allegations in each case that there was a pattern here a pattern of john doe finding a drunk incapacitated female finding a way to go back to the dorms with that young woman and then various various acts of his that were similar between these three  incidents having made that decision the associate dean for conduct him tailor made a practical decision the practical decision being under the policy all three of these incidents may be considered when panel is deciding responsibility for each one so given that the pursuit of the policy these panel members are entitled to consider all three of these cases there is no need for us two times three the amount of personnel and it will take to adjudicate these the times three the number of times that we would have to call people together all of which to repeat all of the same evidence it's a was a practical decision your honor that was fair and when you read the e p paralysed decisions it's clear your honor that they carefully considered the sevens they deliberated the over what witnesses  the the evaluated the credibility in the demeanor of these students that were in front of them both john doe and the complainant they made very rational determinations you'll see in their testimony that they question some things here and there they came up with rational determinations and the fairness of this process your honor is made no more clear than the fact that there was a fourth damning bombshell of an anonymous complaint that arrive right before this hearing was going to take place it alleged that john doe had yet again fount found a way to have access to a drunk female had disrobed her photograph her breasts her anal area an area with his phone an associate dean for conduct taylor kept that out of the hearing because she decided that would be unfair because it's an anonymous complaint and that should allegations were correct that this was a university who was out to railroad him merely because he happens to be a male human being we wouldn't have facts like that in this record and while mr court we have not looked at this record holistically that is actually an ak an accusation that is far more true of mr byler he does not deal with these pieces of evidence that prevents any in of gender discrimination from arising there is also of course the fact that colgate university is proceedings have resulted in very balanced outcomes three men expelled after allegations of sexual misconduct but three found entirely not responsible and no discipline implemented against them at all the remaining three kind of mixed results responsible for the lesser charges but maybe not more serious conduct and not expelled that's not a record that supports this inference that colgate university is is implementing it sexual misconduct policy in a gender biased way to discriminate against men assuming men are guilty investigator brogan your hon she twice the record is undisputed on this point she twice took the side of men in these cases she investigated cases and she twice said they should not be held responsible because the evidence was insufficient the co your honors issued an incredibly comprehensive fifty nine page thorough carefully reasoned decision looking at this evidence this court said in bickerstaff vs faster college that in order to defeat a logical reason the conclusion that you reach after looking at the record evidence respect for your honor the lower court absolutely made the correct determination that on this set of facts and recall john doe has had the full opportunity for for for for discovery for as much as he impugns the investigation this case sure owners and first long as we've been at this litigation he has not come forward with one single piece of information or evidence the val broken and her investigation did not uncover all he has is a summary  expert report that he had this court in raskin versus wyatt said coming forward with an expert report is not a talisman against summary judgment you know shake that expert report it wards off summary judgment the question is is the expert report reliable and this court did an extensive analysis of this report to find that it did not this mr byron told the court that i agree with her had written extensively on trauma in his reply brief he cites to thirteen pages of one of her articles the anti rape culture i commend it to you read those thirteen pages it espouses ideas like women pay  that's what those thirteen pages are about when they're about trama he has she has one sentence one sentence that says that administrators use trauma to ovoid question in compliance or approached in a gender biased way the consolidation decision which i want to talk about more the differential treatment between complainants and large accommodations to john doe because he asked for more time wasn't given  same a vendor said circumstances that's not here and it wasn't just one month it was six months it was hollowing it was valentine's day it was easter passover but these three events occurred that's a long period of time and yet it's called a pattern you can't call it a pattern it's thank you got your papers as well i will reserve decision on this case as well with your brief recess we i just want to i was in that sense you can't decide a pattern with gender bias prejudgment because there's no pattern given the case the the size of the stories that jane john doe