A Reed College senior went to federal court to urge a judge to temporarily halt a campus judicial hearing on a complaint that he sexually assaulted another student who was too intoxicated to provide consent.

The 21-year-old student, identified as John Doe, contends the college mishandled the complaint, allowing a disciplinary hearing on a nearly 3-year-old “stale” allegation, violating Title IX's "promise of prompt resolution of grievances.''

He also argued that Reed’s administration was biased against him because he’s male and failed to consider text messages he received from the complaining student, including one sent the morning after that said, “Ty (thank you) 4 spending da night.’’

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon denied the student’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop the hearing before Reed’s Judicial Board, but the case and the courtroom arguments gave a local focus to the national discussion of how colleges handle sexual assault and harassment allegations under Title IX.

The student who complained had alerted campus authorities less than a year after the 2016 encounter. The alleged victim, who represents as binary, is referred to as Jane Roe in court records.

The college countered that its investigation supports the allegation, and the student who complained less than a year after the 2016 alleged assault has a right to a hearing before the college’s Judicial Board. It took time for two campus investigators to locate and interview witnesses, then more time passed as Doe appealed the initial findings, according to the college’s attorney.

“It is not a hardship to permit the college to proceed with what is required under its policies – to allow Jane Roe to request a hearing for a wrong alleged to have been committed, particularly when the investigative process has found substantial evidence that such a wrong did occur,’’ argued Paula A. Barran, representing Reed.

John Doe took the stand in federal court, telling the judge he’s been harassed, ostracized from certain campus social events and “perceived as essentially a monster already.’’

His attorney, Susan C. Stone, said he’s “lived in complete and total paralysis and fear,’’ not knowing until last month -- more than 2 ½ years later -- if his accuser would pursue a formal complaint that would spur a Judicial Board hearing that could lead to his expulsion.

Reed College’s culture, Stone said, is different than that of most other colleges, describing it as a place where “males are vilified’’ and treated as perpetrators if there’s any perception of having done something offensive to a woman.

Stone argued that Reed has overreacted and violated her client’s rights as a result.

The two students had been in a relationship that started their first year of college in September 2015. The alleged assault occurred on the night of April 22 or 23 in 2016 when John Doe met up with Jane Roe after she had attended a play and sometime later, drove her back to Roe’s dormitory, according to court records.

After their relationship ended, Jane Roe reported to the college in August 2016 multiple instances of alleged nonconsensual sex with Doe. About three weeks later, John Doe filed his own report with the college, alleging Jane Doe sexually harassed and abused him.

The investigation by the school’s Community Safety Office, according to court testimony, found sufficient evidence that John Doe had sexual intercourse with Jane Roe when Roe was extremely intoxicated and couldn’t have consented, based on statements from Roe and witnesses who had seen Roe that night. The investigation found John Doe’s explanations weren’t credible.

Investigators also found in a separate investigation that Jane Doe engaged in “relationship abuse’’ of John Doe.

John Doe last March appealed the finding to the college’s Vice President Michael A. Brody, who serves as the school’s Title IX coordinator. Doe presented hundreds of text messages he had exchanged with his ex, including the one Jane Roe sent him the morning after the sexual encounter and a polygraph exam he had taken.

Brody affirmed the earlier finding, ruling that Jane Roe was “severely intoxicated’’ that night and incapable of giving consent to have sex. John Doe told Brady that he believed Roe had “sobered up sufficiently to consent to have sex,’’ but he couldn’t describe how he got Roe’s consent, according to Reed College.

The college maintained a no-contact order between the two students but took no further steps until Jane Roe turned her report into a formal complaint on Dec. 10.

John Doe argued that Reed shouldn’t have allowed Jane Roe an open-ended amount of time to file a formal complaint.

“I’ve already been investigated. To go through it again, a year later seems unfair because undoubtedly my memory has faded and that seems to work to the advantage of Jane,’’ he testified.

His lawyer said the absence of any deadlines set by Reed College for making a formal complaint created a hostile environment for her client as his future hung in the balance.

Barran, the college’s attorney, said Reed has an obligation to investigate sexual assault allegations and considers that traumatized survivors of sexual violence may not report allegations immediately.

The investigators “did what they could do to get to the bottom of it,’’ she said.

The Judicial Board hearing, which is closed to the public, is scheduled for 5 p.m. Thursday.

-- Maxine Bernstein

Email at mbernstein@oregonian.com

Follow on Twitter @maxoregonian