In a weird way, the approach taken by the Iowa Attorney General’s office on behalf of the University of Iowa in its defense against a Title IX suit by a male student expelled for “sexually harassing and assaulting two fellow students and by possessing and consuming alcohol on campus” not only makes sense, but was the natural progression of campus sex tribunals. Yes, consuming alcohol was in there too. Please wipe that shocked look off your face.

After all, campus sex tribunals are, despite the rhetorical denial that they’re anything more than just routine campus discipline mechanisms, no different than plagiarism, are most assuredly quasi-criminal administrative proceedings. While copying off someone’s test isn’t a crime, rape is.

And when charged with rape, and facing expulsion from college after twelve years of doing what you had to do to get in, after taking on tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, or maybe draining mom and dad’s bank account, to pay to sit in lecture halls and watch end game of all that debt or money seized and forfeited, what else could it be?

Plus, you get the joy of being known as a rapist in campus and internet perpetuity. The only thing missing is the jail cell, but at least you’re eventually let out of a jail cell and you can assert you’ve paid your dues to society. Oh wait, you’re also missing the full panoply of constitutional rights afforded a person charged with a crime and instead condemned by an inquisitor dedicated to protecting young womanhood from guys like you. Or your son. Or your brother. Or maybe even your father, if he teaches on campus.

But if the proceedings, denials notwithstanding, are quasi-criminal, then what does that make the person whose job it is to conclude your guilt?

Here, each of the individual capacity Defendants named above played an important quasi-judicial role in processing Plaintiff’s case. Defendant Stevenson Earl was involved in investigating the complaint, interviewing witnesses, gathering documents, and compiling the hearing record. Defendant Frost served as the adjudicator in this matter, directed the proceedings, heard testimony, excluded or admitted evidence, examined witnesses, reviewed documents, and issued a decision relating to Plaintiff’s responsibility for the conduct of which he was accused. Defendant Keller, in his role as Associate Provost, reviewed Plaintiff’s appeal and the underlying record, reviewed the applicable University policies, and issued a decision to uphold the sanctions which were imposed on Plaintiff. Defendant Braun, in his role as the Executive Director of the Board of Regents, received the record on appeal to the Board of Regents, reviewed the evidence, directed the parties to submit briefing, and issued a decision. Each of these individuals served the University in a quasi-judicial capacity. Any decision made by them in their service to the University and thus to the State of Iowa “may result in a § 1983 lawsuit for damages by disappointed students.”

So what? If their involvement in a quasi-judicial proceeding was quasi-judicial, then, it’s argued, they’re entitled to judicial immunity. Not quasi-immunity, but absolute immunity.

The doctrine of judicial immunity “is supported by a long-settled understanding that the independent and impartial exercise of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by exposure to potential damages for liability.” Like judges, University officials presiding over and facilitating a student misconduct process are exposed to substantial risk of becoming the target of legal actions brought by disappointed students.

See the connection, now that admins are “presiding” like judges and thus susceptible to the “risk” of being sued? Of course, there’s a lot of additional baggage judges carry with them that don’t burden college admins.

Finally, a grant of quasi-judicial immunity is reasonable and just, because Plaintiff and other students are protected by Title IX regulations and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which “work in conjunction to ensure that hearing panel members and university officials act constitutionally” in adjudicating claims.

This might be a compelling argument but for the fact that it completely eschews the other side of the deal, that they’re running a quasi-court that denies the accused of due process, that is staffed by people wholly lacking in qualifications, whether by education, experience, impartiality or temperament, to adjudicate their way out of a paper bag, and a mechanism dedicated to achieving an outcome untainted by such mundane concerns as guilt, innocence, or even definitions of offense that could possibly pass constitutional muster.

You want quasi-judicial immunity? Even prosecutorial immunity, also raised by Iowa in its motion and thus admitting that what they do is prosecute male students? Cool. Then earn it, like a real judge by providing a system that offers due process, competence, impartiality and a fighting chance at an untainted outcome. But until you do, spare us this highly imaginative argument to protect your people from “disappointed students” who, coincidentally, you sacrificed on the altar of Title IX.

H/T The indomitable K.C. Johnson