It would take a judge — or a lawyer with integrity and a duty to disclose — to say a lawyer had led an unlawful civil conspiracy to stop a student’s informing activity by coordinating acts their institution defined as personal harassment — if serious or a clear pattern of behaviour — at the institutional level.

I’m sure the Office of the University Counsel believed that because these acts would be illegal if a member of the public committed them against another member of the public:

the institution hadn’t done anything wrong by condoning and participating in acts the institution warned them are harmful to a learner’s environment.

Because if a lawyer didn’t understand not having a way to report student harassment was an institutional error that he was responsible for by improperly controlling the document, it could cause a domino effect of institutions breaching their statutory duties to believe it was okay to harass learners the institution has a duty of care for.