Not true - we do know that justice was served in this case. Justice was defined by those involved in the lawsuit. All the plaintiffs had to agree. The lawyers had to agree. UT had to agree.
This was not a criminal trial. This was a civil lawsuit where justice was always going to be defined by the amount of money that traded hands. Obtaining money was the sole purpose of the law suit.
The plaintiffs did NOT sue those they accused of the actual criminal activity - they choose to sue UT for $$$s.
A civil court cannot award anything but $$$. It sounds like you expect a civil court to put folks in jail - that is what a criminal court does and most of these plaintiffs chose not to pursue that angle.
Justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It's certainly not a concrete concept.
As I've said, this lawsuit was intended to force UT's hand in making changes with how they deal with sexual assault accusations on campus (the eight Jane Does were merely incidents that allowed the lawsuit to come into existence -- it wasn't really about their cases individually).
Look, I don't like the direction that society is going with its definition of sexual assault, especially on college campuses around the country (regret the morning after intercourse is certainly not anywhere in the same ballpark as a man forcing himself on a woman...but that seems to be the direction things are going -- and that's scary). But I also wouldn't want a university to have insufficient procedures at handling each case, since they would have no idea the merit of each individual case until they are looked into each with diligence and a sense of urgency. I also would not want any segment of the student population treated differently (athletes, non-athletes, majority, minority, rich, poor, etc.) or shown clemency. I doubt you would want this either. This is basic stuff.
According to the lawsuit's accusations, UT had some lapses here (clemency, procedural failures, slow response times, undue bureaucracy in getting judicial reviews). Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The documents that might shed light on that are now sealed. But UT is now saying they have made changes to address any lapses that may have existed (while not admitting guilt at the same time lol). Like I said a few pages back, in that regard it appears the lawsuit served it's purpose.
To address another question in your follow up post, I am not sure I care enough to discuss it further. I've only been responding to posters that have questioned my intended last post in this thread, or a post answer those posts. I don't know enough to feel that justice or injustice has occurred here. But I also do see merit in the lawsuit now. It's that simple. It's also just an opinion, so if someone's opinion differs, I'm not sure why mine would bother them. This isn't an attack on UT, nor a criticism really. The documents that might have led to that outcome for me if they had damning evidence have been sealed. So I choose not to speculate. I did say (and will continue to believe) that what information is public does not paint a flattering picture (Tim Rogers' stated reason for retirement, for one).
