"The UO’s one-year suspension of the man — identified in court records as “John Doe” — was overturned in December by Lane County Circuit Court Judge Curtis Conover, who ruled that the university had disregarded its own procedures before it determined that the male student had committed a sexual assault"  

It reads to me that Judge Conover did not address whether the University has the right to develop and enforce student conduct codes.  That was not the issue.  It reads to me that Judge Conover did not address whether the U of O's conduct code was "fair", or "unbiased" or unconstitutional in any way.  It reads, rather clearly, to me that Judge Conover determined the University did not follow its own procedures in applying that conduct code."  It seems (again to me) that Judge Conover's decision was a narrow decision addressing the specific application/procedures followed in "John Doe's" discipline process and NOT a sweeping condemnation of any disciplinary code.  Gary Crum