Earlier this year, two African-American students filed a lawsuit against their university, alleging racism played a role in the school's decision to expel them for sexual assault.

The two students had what they described as consensual sex with a white female, and even though the woman bragged to other students about the encounter and every witness present the night of the encounter said it was consensual, the students were expelled.

Now the University of Findlay in Ohio has responded in court to the allegations, denying the most egregious claims.

Chief among Findlay's claims is the denial that racism played a role in expelling the two students. The school also denied that its investigation was a "sham" — as the students described it — that failed to question relevant witnesses and even threatened two students who refused to back up the accuser's claim.

The accused students in this case had claimed in their lawsuit that two white female students were present at the house at the time of the sexual encounter. They said that the accuser — referred to as M.K.— made statements and sounds that indicated her consent.

One of the female witnesses was terminated from her work-study job and forced to take another position with the university. The other woman was threatened with expulsion, but the school dropped the threat after the woman's mother made a phone call, according to the lawsuit.

Findlay denies these claims.

Findlay denies that M.K. "had the capacity to consent to the sexual activity" or that her "acts were voluntary." On these denials the university says it is sure, but for most of the information provided in the accused student's lawsuit, the university's defendants say they don't have enough information to form a conclusion.

When faced with accusations that M.K. bragged about her encounter with the two students, the university repeatedly says she lacked the capacity to consent and did not consent voluntarily.

One revelation that should be troubling to any student accused of sexual assault at Findlay is that while the school's disciplinary code states that accused students will be provided with the specific allegations against them, accusations of sexual assault do not require such specificity. So good luck responding to the accusations, accused students.

The school did admit that some of the relevant witnesses were interviewed after the students were already expelled, including one African-American student who was present at the house when the sexual activity occurred. A third African-American student who was present at the house was never interviewed, but the university denied that racism was the reason. Findlay did not provide a reason as to why the two students were not interviewed during the investigation.

Findlay flatly denied allegations that the white women who were interviewed — and who backed up the accused students' story — were retaliated against with expulsion or removal from a job. The school also denied that it interviewed one of the accused student's ex-girlfriends about their past relationship.

The school also admitted to a strange policy that could have been easily open to bias. When an accused student or witness was interviewed, two members of the university would sit in and take their own notes. Then, one of the interviewers would condense the handwritten notes into a summary document and discard the original notes. Findlay admitted that "these summary statements are the primary written evidence maintained memorializing the interviews" with each party.

The summary wouldn't be so bad if the original notes were at least kept intact. Why destroy them?

At one point during Findlay's response, the school says that "no video was ever presented to the investigators," but earlier in its response, said the students "have recently provided video, taken without the consent of M.K." of the alleged sexual assault.

Findlay could have been referring at first to a video now provided to the school, after the investigation, versus having one provided during the investigation. Asked for clarification, the university referred the Washington Examiner to an earlier statement that does not clarify it.

It is also another clear indication that there is no way for accused students to properly defend themselves from accusations, if schools are going to claim that an accuser was too drunk to consent to sex (even if no evidence is provided) and therefore too drunk to consent to being videotaped. Video evidence is the only way for students to prove they did not commit sexual assault, yet schools will just deny the evidence at the accuser's word that she was too drunk to consent.

Findlay also denied that all witnesses told the university that M.K. consented to the sexual activity or that they would have intervened had they suspected foul play. Findlay does not mention whether any witnesses said anything differently, they just simply denied the allegations.

Findlay also denies that the total investigation lasted approximately 24 hours, but does not suggest how long the investigation actually lasted.

Findlay did admit to sending a campus-wide email stating that the students had been expelled, even though the students still had an appeal pending. Findlay tried to soften this by saying the email mentioned the appeal procedure, but as one can imagine, after an email like that, the appeal was denied.

After the students were expelled, they say, a woman who lived on the same dorm floor as M.K. emailed her resident adviser (who is included in the lawsuit) about the false claims. The resident adviser admits this student emailed her about the campus-wide email (she doesn't mention false claims) but denies she told the student to "forget about it" since the decision had already been made.

Findlay also admits that another student wrote an email to the university, but deny the email was about M.K. bragging about her night with the accused students. The school also emailed this student but again denied that it had to do with M.K.'s statements after the event.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, evidence each party provides to support their claims. If the accused students have the emails from witnesses they named as having told the university that M.K. bragged about her encounter, it will be very damaging to Findlay. So far, Findlay is sticking by its decision to expel the students and stand by the accuser's story.

Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.