3 of 64

decision by UT to allow perpetrators of sexual assaults, particularly varsity football and basketball players, to delay and altogether avoid sanctions and discipline for sexual assault by the use of a discriminatory TUAPA procedure that allows only accused perpetrators of sexual assaults (and not victims) to have the right of confrontation, cross-exam ination and a right to an evidentiary administrative hearing. 7. UT, in clear violation of Title IX and the constitutional right to equal protection, is unique among U.S. colleges and universitie s by virtue of its use of a one-sided TU APA administrat ive hearing procedure (“contested case”) that denies victims the rights to a hearing and to the same equal procedural, hearing, and process rights as given to perpetrators of rape and sexual assault. UT further acted (and acts) intentionally and in clear violation of Title IX by acts of custom and an official policy whereby Chancellor Cheek appoints administrative judges and hearing officers favorable to athletes and then

also dec ides an y appe als

from TUAPA hearings in a clear conflict of interest. A hostile sexual environment was created by this procedure and policy as varsity athletes were condoned and encouraged to ha ve parties with alcohol and drugs, entertain recruits, provide alcohol to underage female students and commit sexual assaults with no discipline or deterrence against committing sexual assaults as perpetrators of assaults faced no serious consequences. 8. Athletes knew in advance that UT wou ld: support them even after a co mplaint of sexual assault; arrange for top quality legal representation; and then direct them to the TUAPA process, which was and continues to be a one-sided and unfair system of adjudication. Varsity athletes knew that they (not victims) would be fully supported by the UT athletic department and administration’s process and that the perpetrators and athletic department could deter and discourage victims from pursuing complaints by: having their lawyers depose female victims; subjecting victims to extensive discovery; cross-exam ining sexual assault victims in a full blown hearing before an administrative law judge(appointed by Cheek); and delaying the investigation process until the athlete perpetrators transferred to another school or graduated without sanction or discipline. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Does I, II, IV, and VI and is the very reason that UT Vice-Chancellor Tim Rogers resigned from UT in March 2013 in protest over the violation of Title I X and the UT administration ’s and athletic department’s deliberate indifference to the clear and present danger of sexual assaults by UT athletes. 9. UT administration (Chancellor Cheek), athletic department (Dave Hart) and football