Wise Old Man wrote:
In the end, it comes down to this written by the judge:
“Many of the arguments Doe raises are equitable in nature, condemning “mob justice” and stressing how unfair it is that he lacks a process through which to defend his reputation. But the claim on which Doe seeks injunctive relief sounds in law, not equity, and my role is not to decide what comports with the traditional values of Haverford College or what is the appropriate course for a coach to follow when confronted with a mismatch between one of his athletes and his team. The specific legal question before me is whether Doe has established a reasonable chance of success on his breach of contract claim, and I conclude that he has not.”
As a legal matter, the coach was within his right to boot Doe, but that still leaves open the question of fairness and whether Doe was a victim of cancellation justified or not. It might have been nice if Doe was “called in” and not called out and some sort of restorative justice occurred, especially if there was just a lone unsubstantiated allegation and his behavior was otherwise exemplary. None of us know, but the people at Haverford do know.
This isn't correct. If the coach booted him from the team on the basis of an unproven sexual assault allegation, that's a Title IX violation, and it doesn't matter if he did so because he thinks the kid is guilty or because the mob thinks he's guilty.
