Well he is claiming in the WP article that the investigator “did not interview witnesses he believed would support his case.” and that“Officials failed to advise him that he was entitled to assistance in defending himself and to a student representative, albeit not a lawyer, to help him out.” Those seem like…

I think his argument is that he had consensual sex with a woman and that she “changed her mind” and reported him for assault, and instead of approaching the matter “objectively,” they unfairly chose to believe the female victim and kangaroo-courted him because of said “pro-female, anti-male” bias. I.E., they only…

What court of law found him guilty of a crime? This was all internal to Columbia by my reading of it, so he didn’t have any of the rights we expect of someone being charged with a crime, including not being allowed a lawyer, or it appears call witnesses. The lack to “due process” in these cases should raise questions.…