Does fraudulent tailoring of sexual assault case outcomes and failure to protect student privacy constitute deliberate indifference under Title IX?

QUESTION PRESENTED In 1999, this Court decided Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 and held “a private Title IX damages action may lie against a school board in cases of student-on-student harassment, but only where the funding recipient is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment” and that Title IX is “in nature of a contract” between recipients and the federal government. Petitioner went beyond this ruling and argued that Title IX lawsuits should be evaluated as breaches of ; contract between recipients and the federal government, specifically focusing on the validity of the contract (mutual assent) and the performance of contractual obligations (fraud; failure or inadequacy of performance).! Q1: Does it amount to deliberate indifference under Title IX when a recipient (a) | fraudulently tailor sexual assault case outcome to secure federal funding; (b) fail to protect students’ privacy and respond to the subsequent retaliation complaint? Q.2: Whether lower courts deprived pro se petitioner’s 28 U.S. Code § 1654 rights to represent herself in federal court when they denied her an opportunity to be heard in favor of represented? party?