the the issue of standing as i think your really issue should be fairly obviously defenders try to have it both ways on the issue of standing first they argued that the free speech event itself which the plaintiffs received notice charge as sort of an offhand statement that was said but if you read the gist of the complaints they're all complaining about the nature of the free speech about itself not all of them and and i thought it was and the transcript is available in the joint appendix you have forty five minutes of meeting and not a single question is asked about behavior instead what you have is mr wells asking questions like what is your group why did you have the event what were the signs about all the things that were explained in advance thank you for your words perhaps to understand the nature of what occurred i'm sure i didn't perhaps the questions were asked to establish the context of what occurred then that could have been decided two minutes into the meeting but there were no questions your no questions about it and if you look at the complaints from shops in particular the photographs that were alongside the complaint the photograph showed smiling students talking casually with people in front of tables there was no indication other than a characterization with no facts that this was racist sexist and someone was rude but beyond that one second in one complaint all of the talked about the fact that there were signs we didn't like we thought that this was hate speech and so the very things that were explained in this man's correct student life before the event was approved a news matter of fact the students w the event said there may be some controversy about this because these are free speech issues that have happened on other campuses and we want to explain as part of this a bit their context and how they were decided that was only going into the meeting the meeting with mr wells didn't ask anything but that what was the context and the same information was provided there was no attempt to find out whether or not there was any egg or at all and if as the universe has argue that all th me but had there been any problematic event that could be explored and by the way the gist of the as applied challenge is that those if there had been complaints about behavior that could have been done without sending a notice charge to the to the students that could have been done any number of west ways well i first reading the first employers and seeing if there was any allegation of any specific their speech was it it would have been it would have depending on what they did with that information but certainly what was the legality here with that information what if you're not i don't really understand about this whole are you what if they had if they had found some reason to be concerned about the actual indication that there was something other than the event as out of touch then if they looked further into it that would have been another matter but here rather than conducting any inquiry from complaints or anything else sorry i think what you'll encounter is perplexity as to what you expected the school to do just as a practical matter when confronted with not only of speech but of behavior that occurred after approval was obtained without any way to know what transpired during the boarded with what was expected to allegations were but why didn't you why do you not believe that happened and why do you why would that necessarily bring him into if well if the complaints were specifically said someone got in a fight if these people confronted each other that would been specific information to pursue but instead you have ten pages of complaints all of which say we didn't like the symbols we don't we think this is hate speech we think you should revoke student funding these also part of what you're complaining about no it's not for saying the method the way in which they pursued the investigation and shouldn't be used to an investigation the quest in fact during the meeting is  or staff or student body about complying they were told that they should mediate and if you look at the policies staff six twenty four size mediation means asking for anybody politely to cease the offensive behavior right but that would apply to the organizations and as the school policy is explained and as mr abbott raised during the meeting he was concerned because the penalties for having shouted i'm in violation  include the sanction of the organizations other kinds of i don't these beyond just individual cultists but as i say when the process starts the letter and the toll students they cannot third letter contained no explanation whatsoever of what the other implications were understands you have these two problems you first of all think that this is a gag order in the beginning you think there needs to be an explanation at the end ok we take away those two didn't and you're now in you're also complaining about the fact that there was no explanation about why the investigation that you're complaining about didn't happen it really doesn't seem to me that there is but he's the only one that got this is a particularly interesting case to me and perhaps to to us well us this involves not simply the first amendment which is one part constitution this involves three parts of the constitution and  are really only paid attention to one our constitution which is the first amendment but really it involves article three which is where there's a case in a controversy here which is a constitutional question and it involves equal protection because we have here we have here issues of discrimination which have constitutional origins so this is not a case where the court looks to the first amendment as only the constitutional issue there are three constitutional issue issues here which makes the interplay between them particularly a particularly important i might note that policy six twenty illegal discrimination it's very clear what the university is trying to do which is to protect the rights of all of the students whether they are first women's rights which are mentioned at the outset of six potentially the person who the complaints have been lodged against getting other people then to serve his purpose to retaliate against the complaints assuming that they knew  very high bar about what is required in order to find an implied cause of action under title not against a school or a university receiving federal funds and in that that case even in that case justice o'connor says that we are not simply here looking at what is the level of discrimination what constitutes real discrimination we're looking at something much higher which is what allows us even under the spinning balls the united states constitution which is the basis of the implant cause of action to assess sort of in the time period right there to the letter arrives till the end really the final disposition of this matter that for some time period there you know a reasonable student would have felt the need to self censor that there was some injury point two four does not even have a place for a notice of charge in the six point two four does not even have a plan does not even have a place for not a charge that isn't entirely different sections which is one point zero one you're saying that it's not just mr out so that just because i'm there i can't come to him for solving one way or the other wrong what unless you have any questions how about articulating a compelling interest the universe preventing discrimination making sure that it's open it's open to everybody to get out of an education advert  nobody disagrees with that and you in your research the reason that your response is just not being very helpful to us is that we understand least i do i think i understand with universities trying to do here and i understand what the challenge and the university can do something but what we're trying to do is to look at what they did what their where their regulations do say and how they fit into constitutional requirement and so just saying you're going to answer a question ok answer that question how does this how does this policy further and comply with constitutional requirement when we get a complaint about discrimination we have to make an inquiry just to see what i have to see if there's anything there and if there's nothing there that's the end of this is just an inquiry it's not an investigation and to me the best way to do that is to ask on science as quickly as she can what happened we got something from one side we have the other side what happened but at the meeting south carolina reviewed by the department of justice reviewed by the department of education and only then implemented so the policy inquiry because this was an effort to get it right and not have to go back and revisit it and hopefully not be here you don't want to be here investigation was because of discrimination in sororities on characters and so after the department of justice investigation this policy was adopted to deal with that now there's no discussion of whether or not the first nine hundred aspects were considered it and sometimes they have shown we're concerned others two thousand and three dear colleague letter from the department of education for example working with the department of justice so that the universities should take into account first  years later departments backed away from that and took a more lax standard but whether or not the federal government has taken one or another doesn't affect the legal standard as established by court decisions and here when you're dealing with the process and you have to use the least restrictive means of the district or three you do then at least according to the supreme court in united states were split would tell me that when you have plausible less restrictive options not they will it is the government's burden to prove that they would not effect here rather than start the work of the church here are the things that you must do come in five years later mediate do not speak we listed a number of look less restrictive to me the school doesn't see the less restrictive so how do we solve that question what for when you impose burdens on the speaker first rather than looking to see whether or not there actually is a case here one that is not in because he was the president of the other administration not literally understand precluding because the complaints were about these two organizations and as the representative of the other organization named complaints that was the only other person