Do university graduates have a contractual right to alumni benefits promised to them as paying students, or are these promised benefits 'gratuitous' and thus lack the consideration to form an implied student-university contract?

Petitioner, a two-time New York University (“NYU ”) alumnus, was banned from alumni entrepreneurship programs and later in retaliation was designated a persona non grata on campus under threat of arrest with zero justification by NYU. Petitioner had participated in NYU ’s paid startup contest that selected 5 fewer winners than advertised, a breach of contract impacting hundreds of contestants in 2021. The denial of alumni services in discriminatory fashion created another breach of contract and a Title 6 claim. NYU was also engaging in pervasive gender discrimination in its entrepreneurship programs, leading to a Title 9 claim supported by NYU statistical evidence. District Judge Liman, with numerous NYU conflicts of interest, did not recuse and issued biased orders with flawed arguments that have created legal precedents detrimental to the public. The second circuit has rubber-stamped Judge Liman ’s orders with similarly flawed arguments. The four questions presented are: 1. Do university graduates have a contractual right to alumni benefits promised to them as paying students, or are these promised benefits “gratuitous ” and thus lack the consideration to form an implied student-university contract? 2. Did the hundreds of paying NYU startup contestants in 2021 have a contractual right to the 5 non-selected winning spots, and more generally can paid contest promoters with no disclaimers select fewer winners than advertised? ii 3. How narrowly should Judges define similarly situated disparate treatment examples, such as two clothing retailers must be similar at the apparel level according to the district court, and can alleged examples be ignored altogether in civil rights discrimination pleadings? 4. Do the appellate courts have a duty to reverse orders when district judges fail to uphold 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the conflicts only come to light after their orders are handed out?