State contractual guarantees of good faith and fair dealing apply to a student's relationship with their university; where procedures are published, this duty is displaced by a contractual guarantee of compliance with the stated procedures.
While the school's procedures were generally in accord with the published rule, possibly prejudicial ex parte communications during the tribunal's deliberations present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Despite plaintiff's indications of intent to file a lawsuit, an email from an officer of the deft promising an independent investigation did not create a binding contract, as plaintiff never evinced a willingness to strike a deal -- there was no consideration.
Statistics alone can't establish a Title IX claim on the outcome or for deliberate indifference; the specific mechanism of discriminatory action needed to be identified.
Procedural unfairness in student disciplinary decisions sounds in contract, not tort.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2290P-01A.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.